Cremation, Caste, and Cosmogony in Karmic Traditions.

ethically conditioned (fig 1.2). This conditioning must
include the person’s actions in a preceding life. The
principle of reward and punishment cannot only include
the otherworld, but the forthcoming rebirth as well
(ibid:78-80). “If ethicisation is carried out to embrace the
whole eschatological sphere constituting the otherworld
(or – worlds), as well as the human world into which one
is reborn, and if this is followed through into finite and
infinite rebirth cycles, then one will have created a
theory like that of karma” (ibid:82).
A rebirth eschatology does not concern itself with
“salvation”. In theory, it is possible to have a karma
theory without salvation. Consequently, nirvana is
sought outside samsara or the cycle of rebirths: it must
result in the cessation of rebirth. There is no way to
achieve nirvana without transcending or abolishing
samsara (ibid:127-128). Another problem is when and
where the punishments take place. In every society
people are punished on earth for their bad deeds. In a
society with ethicisation step 1 they continue to be
punished or rewarded in some heaven or hell. But if they
have been punished and rewarded, then there should be
no reason for them to suffer in another reincarnation
(ethicisation step 2) (ibid:236). The solutions to this
dilemma are at least twofold. Firstly, I cannot be
punished for the wrong I do now at the very same
existence without turning a karmic eschatology back into
a rebirth eschatology. Hence, “an impersonal ethical law
that punishes or rewards me straight away for what I
have done empties heavens and hells and good and bad
rebirths of any ethical significance” (ibid:82), and
therefore, immediate punishments are rare in Indian
religions. Secondly, any rewards or punishments are not
completed or totally fulfilled in the first or forthcoming
reincarnation. There will always be some karmic
“remains”, and introducing aporias solves this problem.
Obeyesekere has observed that there is a “psychological
uncertainty” about one’s previous karma (Obeyesekere
1968:21), because the theory supposes that “one’s past is
part of one’s present and that one’s present and past
together will be one’s future, and…these transformations
and transportations…of past into present and present into
future are carried out by the cultural
mechanism…establishing the dictum that “a person is
what he does and he does what he is” (Daniel
1983:111)”.
Thus, the law of karma is embedded in five main
philosophical and religious doctrines: 1) All actions
which are morally accountable made out of desire for
their fruits have consequences, 2) the consequences of
these actions are according to the character of the actions
– good actions have good consequences whereas wrong
actions cause bad consequences, 3) depending upon the
consequences, some are manifested in this life or
immediately, some in the next life and some in more
remote futures, 4) the effects of these karmic actions can
be accumulated, and 5) humans can be reborn into this
8
world (Reichenbach 1990:13-22). The law of karma is
related to causation, but not strictly for many reasons: 1)
Causality produces consequences regardless of agents
whereas the law of karma is concerned with the doer of
the actions, 2) causality is not dependent upon the
intention of the actor but only his actual acts whereas the
law of karma is dependent upon both, 3) the law of
karma produces same effects – good actions causes good
consequences and so forth, 4) causality is irrespective of
moral issues whereas the law of karma is solely
concerned with this, and 5) causality causes immediate
or direct consequences whereas the karmic consequences
might be manifested in the next life or in even more
remote futures (ibid:24-25).
Karma is not a mere abstraction, but a substance that can
only be transmitted through bodily substances (Daniel,
S. 1983:28). Although a person will be punished for his
own sins and rewarded for good merits, he will also be
rewarded or punished for acts committed by his
ancestors and living kinsmen over which he has no
control (ibid:30). The problem then is that the
transference of both merit and demerit contradicts the
notion of justice; the possibility for getting others to
suffer for our bad deeds requires some theistic
administrator who “keeps the record” (Reichenbach
1990:155) in accordance with his own divine plan. “The
goal of human striving is to achieve liberation from the
constant round of rebirths which is driven by karma”,
Reichenbach argues, but “the cycle can be broken and
liberation achieved only when our karma is exhausted
and there is nothing more to cause subsequent rebirths.
This means that the ideal karmic state occurs when the
sum total of karmic residues is zero” (ibid:177).
The law of karma is a metaphysical doctrine describing
the nature of reality. According to Weber, “the karma
doctrine transformed the world into a strictly rational,
ethically-determined cosmos; it represents the most
consistent theodicy ever produced by history” (Weber
1958:121). The doctrine of karma is the result of the
process of ethicisation, as indicated, but also of a process
of rationalisation. Rationalisation is a process through
which cultures define their religious life-world, and it
comprises two major facets; 1) an intellectual
clarification, specification, and systematisation of ideas,
and 2) normative controls of sanctions whereby humans
are subject to a “hierarchy of controls” (Parsons
1964:xxxii). In Weber’s thought there is a basic duality
between magic and ethic or emotional and rational-social
(ibid:xxxvii). The ritual significance of caste
observances, or in other words, the social
sacramentalism in Indian religions must also be
emphasised (ibid:liii). “Hinduism is unusually tolerant of
doctrine (mata) while placing the greatest emphasis on
ritual duties (dharma). Nevertheless, Hinduism has
certain dogmas…if by dogma one means creedal truths
whose denial is considered heretical and places the
group if not the individual outside the Hindu
community” (Weber 1958:117-118).