DEFINITIONS AND TYPES OF KARMA
KARMA ~ inheritance from the past. Ken Wilber
Karma (Sanskrit: कककक IPA: [ˈkərmə] (
listen);[1] Pali: kamma) in Indian religions is the
concept of "action" or "deed", understood as that which causes
the entire cycle of cause and effect (i.e., the cycle
called saṃsāra) originating in ancient India and treated in
the Hindu, Jain, Buddhist and Sikh religions
Sanskrit karma fate, work
First Known Use: 1827
1. the force generated by a person's actions held in Hinduism
and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical
consequences to determine the nature of the person's next
existence
2. : vibration
Synonyms: air, ambience (or ambiance), aroma,atmosphere
, climate, flavor, halo, aura, mood, nimbus,note, odor, pa
tina, smell, temper, vibration(s)
karma
noun
(Concise Encyclopedia)
In Indian philosophy, the influence of an individual's past
actions on his future lives or reincarnations. It is based on the
conviction that the present life is only one in a chain of lives
(see samsara). The accumulated moral energy of a person's
life determines his or her character, class status, and
disposition in the next life. The process is automatic, and no
interference by the gods is possible. In the course of a chain of
lives, people can perfect themselves and reach the level
of Brahma, or they can degrade themselves to the extent that
they return to life as animals. The concept of karma, basic to
Hinduism, was also incorporated into Buddhism and Jainism.
KRIYAMANA KARMA ~ Instant Karma
AGAMI KARMA~ Delayed Karma
SANCHITA KARMA~ Karma from past lives
PRARABHA KARMA~ Karma that is postulated to be the amount
you can work off in one life
Nishkam Karma, or self-less or desireless action is an action
performed without any expectation of fruits or results, and the
central tenet of Karma Yoga path to Liberation, which has
now found place not just in business
management, management studies but also in promoting
better Business ethics as well [1]. Its modern advocates press
upon achieving success following the principles of Yoga [2],
and stepping beyond personal goals and agendas while
pursuing any action over greater good [3][4][5], which has
become well known since it is the central message of
the Bhagavad Gita [6].
In Indian philosophy, action or Karma has been divided
into three categories, according to their intrinsic qualities
or gunas. Here Nishkam Karma belongs to the first category,
theSatvik (pure) or actions which add to calmness; the Sakam
Karma (Self-centred action) comes in the
second rājasika (aggression) and Akarma (in-action) comes
under the third,tāmasika which correlates to darkness or
inertia [7].
Sakam Karma (Attached Involvement) or actions done with
results in mind.
Nishkam Karma, gets an important place in the Bhagavad
Gita, the central text of Mahabharata [16],
where Krishna advocates 'Nishkam Karma Yoga' (the Yoga of
Selfless Action) as the ideal path to realize the Truth. Allocated
work done without expectations, motives, or thinking about its
outcomes tends to purify one's mind and gradually makes an
individual fit to see the value of reason and the benefits of
renouncing the work itself. These concepts are vividly described
in the following verses:
To action alone hast thou a right and never at all to its fruits;
let not the fruits of action be thy motive; neither let there be in
thee any attachment to inaction.
- Verse 47, Chapter 2-Samkhya theory and Yoga practise, The
Bhagavadgita [17][18]
"Fixed in yoga, do thy work, O Winner of wealth (Arjuna),
abandoning attachment, with an even mind in success and
failure, for evenness of mind is called yoga"
- Verse 2.48[19]
"With the body, with the mind, with the intellect, even merely
with the senses, the Yogis perform action toward selfpurification, having abandoned attachment. He who is
disciplined in Yoga, having abandoned the fruit of action,
attains steady peace..."
- Verse 5.11[20]
Consequentialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical
theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are
the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that
conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally
right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good
outcome, or consequence.[citation needed]
Consequentialism is usually distinguished from deontological
ethics (or deontology), in that deontology derives the
rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the character of
the behaviour itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct. It
is also distinguished from virtue ethics, which focuses on the
character of the agent rather than on the nature or
consequences of the act (or omission) itself, and pragmatic
ethics which treats morality like science: advancing socially
over the course of many lifetimes, such that any moral
criterion is subject to revision. Consequentialist theories differ
in how they define moral goods.[citation needed]
Some argue that consequentialist and deontological theories
are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, T.M.
Scanlon advances the idea that human rights, which are
commonly considered a "deontological" concept, can only be
justified with reference to the consequences of having those
rights.[1] Similarly, Robert Nozick argues for a theory that is
mostly consequentialist, but incorporates inviolable "sideconstraints" which restrict the sort of actions agents are
permitted to do.[1]
Negative consequentialism
Most consequentialist theories focus on promoting some sort of
good consequences. However, one could equally well lay out a
consequentialist theory that focuses solely on minimizing bad
consequences. (Negative utilitarianism is an actual example.)
One major difference between these two approaches is the
agent's responsibility. Positive consequentialism demands that
we bring about good states of affairs, whereas negative
consequentialism may only require that we avoid bad ones. A
more strenuous version of negative consequentialism may
actually require active intervention, but only to prevent harm
from being done. An alternative theory (using the example of
negative utilitarianism) is that some consider the reduction of
suffering (for the disadvantaged) to be more valuable than
increased pleasure (for the affluent or luxurious).[citation
needed]
[edit]
Teleological ethics
Teleological ethics (Greek telos, “end”; logos, “science”) is an
ethical theory that holds that the ends or consequences of an
act determine whether an act is good or evil. Teleological
theories are often discussed in opposition
to deontological ethical theories, which hold that acts
themselves are inherently good or evil, regardless of the
consequences of acts.[citation needed]
Acts and Omissions, and the 'Act and Omissions Doctrine'
Since pure consequentialism holds that an action is to be
judged solely by its result, most consequentialist theories hold
that a deliberate action is no different from a deliberate
decision not to act. This contrasts with the Acts and Omissions
Doctrine, which is upheld by some medical ethicists and some
religions: it asserts there is a significant moral distinction
between acts and deliberate non-actions which lead to the
same outcome. This contrast is brought out in issues such
as voluntary euthanasia - a pure consequentialist would see
no moral difference between allowing a patient to die by, for
example, withholding food; switching off their life-support
machine; or actively killing them with harmful drugs.
[edit]
The Ultimate end is a concept in the moral philosophy of Max
Weber, in which individuals act in a faithful, rather than
rational, manner.[citation needed]
We must be clear about the fact that all ethically oriented
conduct may be guided by one of two fundamentally differing
and irreconcilably opposed maxims: conduct can be oriented
to an "ethic of ultimate ends" or to an "ethic of responsibility."
This is not to say that an ethic of ultimate ends is identical
with irresponsibility, or that an ethic of responsibility is
identical with unprincipled opportunism. Naturally nobody
says that. However, there is an abysmal contract between
conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of ultimate ends—
that, is in religious terms, "the Christian does rightly and
leaves the results with the Lord"—and conduct that follows the
maxim of an ethic of responsibility, in which case one has to
give an account of the foreseeable results of one's action."
[edit]
King James Translation of Galatians: 6:7
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sows,
that shall he also reap.
King James Translation of Proverbs 23:7
For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith
he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.