Talk:Karma in Hinduism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carlarob412. Peer reviewers: Sehamahmadd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 03:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Page numbers missing in ref 1, 4 etc.
 * In The role of divine forces, can the long headings be shortened, like Samkya view, Vedanta view?
 * Use citeweb for formatting web ref (bare urls) like http://www.shaivam.org/hipkarma.htm
 * Vedanta's refutations and A Supreme God is ultimately the enforcer of karma but humans have the free will to choose good or evil - need to be merged as present similar ideas
 * Gita interpretations and role of Guru uses the WP:PRIMARY source (Verses 4:14, 9.22 and 18.61) as ref, specify specific book which interprets the verses like that.

I agree that simplifying may be better, but for a third party with no exposure to Hinduism, it's probably easier summarizing the main idea, than characterizing it as a Vedanta view. Raj2004 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC) ____

The section titles, the lengthy ones should be shortened. For Ex : "Neither supreme God nor does lesser divinities exist; rituals alone yield the fruits of karma" can be changed to "Views by Mimamsakas", and in the text of this section, the contents of the title can be paraphrased as "According to Mimamsakas, Neither supreme God nor does lesser divinities ..." The section "The role of divine forces" needs to be worked out on this front. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC) why are your fucking words misspleald

Transmigration in older Vedic texts
Apropos of this edit. I'm somewhat dismayed by the reference: I really thought Yuvraj Krishan was a more careful scholar. But here he is clearly cherry-picking. Worse, he is ignoring the literature on the subject, and that too after actually citing some authors, specifically Keith and Oldenberg. In short, Krishan's signal failure to address the views in prior literature means that he is not stating an academic consensus (as would be appropriate for a citation, especially in the lede) but merely his own opinion. However, I'm quite aware that not a few editors would dearly like to find transmigration in the Rgveda, so I'm going to let the edit stand for a while, if only to see who wants to defend it. rudra (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Krishan cites Keith's The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads (full text at archive.org, Vol 1 and Vol 2) in this chapter, but quite remarkably says nothing about the discussion on p. 570ff. (in Vol 2), where among other verses, 1.164.30 and 1.164.38 in particular are treated. Sample:
 * Krishan also cites Keith's Rigveda Brahmanas (full text) for AB.2.8, but again fails to take note of Keith's introduction, p.44:

Copying of this Wikipedia article from an Indian publisher
Professor Pandey in his book, Encylopedia of Indian Philosophy, appeared to take excerpts from the Wikipedia article and pasted it in his book; I was checking Google Books and note that whole excerpts from the wikipedia article on Karma in Hinduism were published in Vraj Kumar Pandey 's Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy, pg. 33 See, http://books.google.com/books?cd=1&q=swami+sivananda+karma+vraj+kumar+pandey&btnG=Search+Books I don't know if Mr Pandey acknowledge in a footnote in his book, Wikipedia?

I changed one of the references to Thirugnana Sambanthar in the current article, since the referenced 2004 web link was dead, and Mr. Pandey seemed to have copied the Wikipedia article anyway. Indeed, the earliest versions of the article with reference to Swami Sivananda, with reference to karma was made in 2004 way prior to the 2007 publication of Professor Pandey: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Hinduism&oldid=8711064 I hope that he referenced Wikipedia. The Google snippet was a limited preview so I don't know whether he referenced wikipedia.

The publisher is Anmol Publications. Raj2004 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I e-mailed the publisher. They acknowledged this mistake by stating, "Respected sir we deeply regret that your name didn't come in book references.this was part of a mistake done by our research team.we will definately add your name in next edition. thanking u for informing our mistake." Raj2004 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://coachgray.blogspot.com/2009/08/laws-of-karma-and-samsara.html. (Other sources may be involved as well; this was discovered through a contributor copyright investigation.) Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

All sources in the "The role of Divine sources" section have just been marked unreliable
I'd just like to draw attention of other editors to Mark Muesse's edit yesterday

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Hinduism&diff=630441824&oldid=620930373

He marked every citation in the section "The role of Divine sources" as unreliable. This is to support a sentence he added to the Karma article a few days ago "The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment" without qualification in its Karma section - at the same time he also removed my "disputed" tag from that sentence.

I am a Buddhist and don't know much about Hinduism - but I don't find it credible that all those citations are wrong, including e.g. a Hindu temple website writing about their own beliefs, also I've searched google scholar and come across it in scholarly articles also. Some of the sources may be unreliable perhaps but they can't ALL be wrong. Including also the accounts for individual Hindu traditions which some of them have separate articles here.

But I am not knowledgeable about Hinduism. Don't know what to do but want to draw your attention to this dispute.

See Talk:Karma Robert Walker (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Peruse WP:Reliable. As that wiki page explains, unreliable, questionable sources are those with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing personal opinions and fringe views. This article has many unreliable sources; for example, among others, chennaionline.com blogs, promotional materials, one source is Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy, by Vraj Kumar Pandey which was a copy and paste of an old version of wikipedia article - something discussed here and for which Pandey/Publisher apologized; these sources do not meet WP:Reliable guidelines.
 * The GA review of this article made similar comments on factual accuracy and verifiability, a while ago. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Mark, they are not all unreliable. I agree that wikipedia of course shouldn't use cut and past copies of itself as citations. That was okay - indeed it would have been acceptable to just remove that citation, wikipedia shouldn't cite itself, obviously, even if part of it is made into a book.


 * But you marked them all as unreliable. I didn't check them all - but for instance, this seems a major website about hinduism: Shaiva.org which you marked as unreliable. We don't have to only rely on scholarly sources in wikipedia. That's notable enough to count as a notable source, - if a website by Hindus about their own religion isn't reliable, what is? Similarly you marked the outreach education website of a Hindu temple Sri Siva Vishnu Temple as an unreliable source.


 * I don't think either of those would be considered unreliable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. The criticisms of the sources on this page you link to are part of an old conversation from 4 years ago. It would be appropriate to add a tag saying that better citations are needed. What it has now are not the best primary sources but the sort of thing you would use along with other sources just fine (apart from the bookified wikipedia article which should be just removed, it is definitely not acceptable).


 * it is also easy to find scholarly articles saying the same things as these sources. Just try a google search in google scholar


 * And it is not uncommon for scholarly sources to contradict each other. So - you can't conclude, just because you found a scholarly source saying that there is no role of Divine intervention in Hinduism, that therefore all the other sources saying the opposite are unreliable. It could be that your source is the unreliable one. It's been my experience that many scholarly articles on Buddhism are inaccurate. While others are thorough and well researched. For sure, it can sometimes be hard to know which is which. Robert Walker (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the most scholarly and thorough source I have found so far, in a quick Google scholar / Google Books search. But because of the problem establishing which are the reliable primary sources in this subject (and also because he says a few things about Buddhism that I'm not sure are accurate leading me to wonder about the quality of his information about Hinduism) - I wouldn't say we should rely on him as a primary source. Just an indication that there may be some Hindus who think this way, equally scholarly, and backing up what this page says.


 * ""Because of the difficulty  of accounting  for  the action  of the  law  of karma  naturally, some  have  argued  that  a god  of  some  sort  is  a necessary  component  of any system which advocates  the law of    karma.   There   must  be  some  sort   of  theistic        administrator  or supervisor for karma, For example,        `Sa.nkara  argues  that  the original karmic  actions        themselves  cannot bring about the proper results at        some  future   time;   neither   can  supersensuous,        nonintelligent  qualities  like apuurva or ad.r.s.ta        by  themselves   mediate   the  appropriate,  justly        deserved  pleasure and pain.  The fruits, then, must        be administered  through  the action  of a conscious        agent,  namely,  God  (II`svara).(13) In  a  similar        vein, Nyaaya  uses this as one of its arguments  for        the existence  of God.  Our karmic  acts  result  in        merits  and  demerits.   Since  unconscious   things        generally do not move except when caused by an agent        (the  ax moves  only  when  swung  by an agent), and        since  the  law  of karma  is an  unintelligent  and        unconscious  law, there must be a conscious  God who        knows  the merits  and demerits  which persons  have        earned  by their  actions, and  who functions  as an        instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their        appropriate fruits.  Though immobile, he affects the        person's environment, even to its atoms, and for the        reincarnate  produces the appropriate  rebirth body,        all  in  order  that  the  person   might  have  the        karmically appropriate experiences.""


 * From: Karma, causation, and divine intervention By Bruce R. Reichenbach, ' Philosophy East and West' Volume 39, no.2 April 1989


 * Robert Walker (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Have just posted here asking for help from any Hindu or expert on Hinduism who knows which are reliable primary sources. Talk:Hinduism Robert Walker (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Mark.muesse Have just found an article by Sivananda_Saraswati a noted Hindu spiritual teacher, who uses Karma as one of his proofs of existence of God using this same argument as the previous quote (I found it while searching for a primary source for Reichenbach's statement) - that he is needed in order to dispense the fruits of Karma.


 * ""Some people die when they are eighty years old; some die when they are in the womb; some die at twenty; some at forty. What is the cause for the variation? Who has fixed the span of life for all? This clearly proves that there is the theory of Karma, that there is one Omniscient Lord, who is the dispenser of the fruits of the actions of the Jivas, who fixes the span of life of the Jivas in accordance with their nature of Karma or actions, who knows the exact relation between Karmas and their fruits. As Karma is Jada or insentient, it certainly cannot dispense with the fruits of their actions.""


 * It is a diverse religion so it is no objection at all if you find that he is unusual in his views - as a noted Hindu expressing his views, it counts as Hinduism. And as his own writings, you can't question its reliability or that it is a primary source.


 * See God Exists Robert Walker (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am giving an outside opinion here, because one has been requested on the talk:Hinduism page. As per, WP:RS, the best sources are third party academic sources.  I didn't see many such sources in this debate.  Sivananda Saraswati is a notable Hindu preacher.  So, his views can be mentioned here with an inline attribution to him, but not as fact.  The "fact" in this case what the majority of Hindus believe in, and that is not something the Swami Sivananda would know.  So, his is an opinion, no matter how notable he is.  Speaking for myself, as a practising Hindu, I would say that karma is generally understood by Hindus to be an automatic causation of action-reaction without any divine intervention.  Some people do believe in divine intervention in everything.  Such people would also believe in divine intervention in karma (as a special case). Disregarding those interventionists, all the other people either believe that karma acts on its own or, even if it is administered by a divine being, it is administered according to the theory, not by divine discretion.  To put it a bit more explicitly, if you have bad karma, you will suffer, no matter how much God wants to help you!  Now, that is bad news for preachers.  They are compelled to say that God can wash away bad karma if you pray.  But perhaps praying itself is good karma that can wash away bad karma.  Nobody knows how it exactly works.  Hope this helps. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay -I wonder if that section then needs an edit of the introduction making it clear that it is a minority view. I guessed that it might be. BTW does he count as Nyaya himself? I've absolutely no idea, I'm way out of my depth here. Someone else needs to edit this, I think, to fix it, just put it in as a "stub". If you think you can express it better do go ahead, as far as I'm concerned anyway. I've no idea about reliable sources - just is obvious from his writing that there is at least one notable Hindu, who thinks this way, and added it as the best citation I could find in a google search. But as to further nuances, well someone else has to sort that out! BTW in Buddhism also nobody knows exactly how it works, it is one of the four imponderables - and it is not the result of any divine intervention of course. Robert Walker (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Proof of existence of God from Karma
I've added a new section on this, since we now have a good primary source, also found entry on Nyaya which gives more information - added their primary source as a ref likewise. Obviously needs attention of an expert - but I thought it needed at least a minimal stub mention in the article so have just gone ahead and added it. Robert Walker (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Western Bias in main Karma article
An RfC seems an obvious way ahead but the editor who feels strongly that the article should remain as it is has shown no interest in a RfC.

The issue is that the article has a Karma section which is based on an article by a Western philosopher Whitely Kaufman, called "Karma, Rebirth and the problem of evil" presented to the "Revisioning Karma" conference.

It presents many conclusions Kaufman made about Karma, and presents them in objective "encyclopaedic tone" as issues with all such ideas not just in Western adaptations of the ideas but in the original Hindu and Buddhist ideas of karma. Also it is presented before the sections on Karma in Hinduism, Buddhism etc - so at that point in the article the reader hasn't yet been exposed to the original ideas.

There is no evidence as far as I can see that her arguments have been accepted as even of interest by Eastern scholars. Those involved in the debate as far as I can see are Western theologians and philosophers. At any rate, no Eastern scholars as far as I can see in the papers submitted to the conference on "Revisioning Karma".

For details, see Talk:Karma

As you'll see there also, another editor, Dorje presented a suggestion for re-ordering the page that was supported by myself also and one other editor but it came to nothing Talk:Karma

I don't know what to do next, I know sometimes on Wikipedia there is nothing you can do in cases like this, just drawing your attention to this. Suggestions welcome!

Robert Walker (talk)

Please rely on academic sources
Please rely on academic sources rather than popular teachers.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed - that's the problem though What are the academic sources then? I think the citation from a notable teacher is enough to show that some Hindus think this way - but not whether they are few or many or how significant or insignificant this view is in Hinduism etc - what is the broader context?


 * It's been my experience that many sources by Westerners who are not specialist in Eastern religion, such as philosophers or anthropologists, cannot be trusted, are often unreliable or over simplified, and misrepresent core ideas. At least that's the case for the Buddhist teachings so I expect it is also true for Hinduism. So you have to know where to look.


 * The Karma in Buddhism (not edited by me I hasten to add) has many good sources both Eastern and Western. Surely there must be equally many in Hinduism, indeed many more. Is there anyone here with knowledge of those sources? Of good quality sources? I'm a Buddhist - and just a Buddhist practitioner, not a scholar in that field - and ended up in discussion here just because of that sentence in the Karma article - which seems is surely incorrect - but what are the best citations? Can some Hindu scholar step in and supply them? There are surely many Hindu scholars - is there anyone here with the expertise to sort out this article? Robert Walker (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as far as I know, I don't know many scholars who are familiar with the specific topic of karma in hinduism. The Brahma Sutras is an authoritative Vedantic test regarding karma in Hinduism, but other than Swami Sivananda, I am not aware of academic sources (Swami sivananda was a respected teacher, not a professor) who is knowledgeable on the subject.

The academic study of religion is like literature. The best in religion are popular teachers unlike academics, similarly to writers vs academics in literature.

However, the article does quote some academics when it can such as Reichenbach, Bruce R. (April 1989). "Karma, causation, and divine intervention". Philosophy East and West (Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy, pg. 34, by Vraj Kumar Pandey, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Dasgupta, Surendranath, A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume V, The Southern Schools of Saivism, p. 87. and Krishnan, Yuvraj, "The Doctrine of Karma," 1997, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. It appears that the Google web link for the Krishnan resource is dead due to Google's decision to stop allowing links based upon a court copyright law decision.

Raj2004 (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There are thousands of scholarly articles on "karma in Hinduism". This article does not rely on peer reviewed scholarly sources. It needs a major revision. Visit a good library. You will find numerous scholarly sources on karma and Hinduism (as well as other Indian religions). Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not the sole author of the article on Karma in Hinduism. I am the one who added articles from academics such as "Karma, causation, and divine intervention". Philosophy East and West (Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy, pg. 34, by Vraj Kumar Pandey, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Dasgupta, Surendranath, A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume V, The Southern Schools of Saivism, p. 87. and Krishnan, Yuvraj, "The Doctrine of Karma," 1997, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers and noted teacher such as Swami Sivananda. So your comments do not pertain to me. If you have academic sources, please add. Thanks. Raj2004 (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to what you believe, there are not thousands of scholarly articles on Karma in Hinduism. Professors focus more on religious practices and other theological aspects. In this area, much of the writing has also been done by popular teachers. If you have some of those thousand sources, please add. Even good libraries have more sources on the Abrahamic religions, rather than Hinduism.

Thanks. Raj2004 (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Failed verification and other issues
Dear Raj2004, You removed the "failed verification" and other tags, which after rechecking the sources, I have re-added.

I placed a tag, in Ramanuja section that alleges the phrase, "due to Vishnu as the supreme Enforcer of karma" (a tag you removed here). I have rechecked Krishan cite, pages 155-156 which you allege supports this. These failed verification. Neither of those pages nor the entire chapter of Krishan ever makes any reference to "Vishnu as the supreme Enforcer". I have checked the history of edits, and it is you who originally added that summary (see 1 and 2). In good faith, I am assuming you accidentally cited the wrong pages, and for now I have just tagged it. Please identify where in Krishan's book is Ramanuja alleged to refer to "Vishnu as the supreme Enforcer of karma".

You allege Tapsyananda is a noted scholar. Noted by whom? Please identify any peer reviewed scholarly literature or reliable secondary or tertiary source that cite Tapsyananda and his personal opinions about karma. I tried searching citation index and he is not mentioned even in one source. What persuades you that Tapsyananda is a cited, non-fringe reliable source on karma literature? Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mark:

Saw your comments on Karma in Hinduism. Some that you removed were appropriate such as "Vishnu as the supreme Enforcer of karma." I apologize for the error. Yes, Swami Tapsasynanda is not an academic (see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Tapasyananda_%28Ramakrishna_Mission%29). He appears to have been a respected scholar of the Ramakrishna Mission as he appears to have written many books (according to Google Scholar, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=Tapasyananda&hl=en&as_sdt=0,31)

Should that not that carry some weight for citation? Because in some religious studies, you may not always find academics who are authorities on the subject. Thanks. Raj2004 (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)