Biography:
Winfried Corduan was in born in 1949 in Germany. He earned his M.A. fromTrinity Evangelical Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Rice University. He is author to a respectable collection of books such as Pocket Guide to World Religions, and Handmaid to Theology: An Essay in Philosophical Prolegomena.

BEYOND KARMA: SIN IN HINDUISM by Winfried Corduan

          Christian students of world religions have often become occupied, perhaps even preoccupied, with finding the beliefs that correspond to Christian doctrines in other religions. They want to know what terms they should substitute for, say, God, the Bible, sin, or salvation, as they learn about what non-Christian religions teach.  Underlying such a quest is obviously the assumption that all religions conform to a basic pattern (which frequently just “happens” to be that of Christianity), and that studying other religions means learning to insert the right concepts into their appropriate slots, as dictated by the paradigm.  I do not think we need to belabor the fact that this approach can seriously distort the beliefs of other religions.  However, the abuse of such a search for equivalences does not negate the fact that sometimes there are similarities that we should recognize as such.[1]

          One particularly tricky case in point is the question of whether there is an idea equivalent to the Christian concept of sin in Hinduism.  One long-standing approach is to designate the Hindu idea of “karma” as carrying out the function of sin, even though “karma” in many ways differs drastically from what we Christians would mean by “sin.”  Thus, Dean C. Halverson lays out a chart in which he contrasts karma and sin,[2] pointing out the significant differences between the two (which I will state later on in this paper), but clearly beginning with the assumption that in important ways sin and karma are functionally analogous to each other.  Nevertheless, by the time we have taken a closer look at the differences, one wonders how there can be any similarity or even analogy at all. 

Popular presentations proselytizing for Hinduism (although they would probably reject that characterization) frequently go on from that observation that Hinduism does not espouse an idea of sin, thereby attempting to create the appearance that, therefore, Hinduism is tolerant of all actions and is not the condemnatory religion that Christianity is supposedly known to be.[3] 

          In what follows, I would like to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a pretty clear notion of sin in Hinduism, which even turns out to be not all that different from what Christians mean by “sin.”  However, this concept is not karma.    Thus I will first show why a parallel to karma simply does not work out and then to explicate four Sanskrit terms that actually have a more straightforward meaning of “sin.” 

Why Karma is not Sin

          Let me clarify that I am not taking issue with the fact that karma constitutes the major obstacle to salvation in Hinduism. My point is that the major obstacle to salvation in Hinduism is even less like sin than we might initially think.  And this fact should not be terribly surprising since salvation as understood in Hinduism is nothing like salvation in Christianity. Specifically, in Hinduism salvation consists of escaping the cycle of reincarnations, while in Christianity salvation means reconciliation with God and eternal life with him. 

          Karma, as virtually everyone recognizes, is the cosmic law of cause and effect, according to which a person’s next life will be shaped by his actions in this life.  It is the driving force of samsara, the cycle of reincarnations.  Karma determines the consequences of our actions, rewarding the good that we did and punishing us for the evil.  The apparent equivalence to sin comes into play when we observe that the accumulation of bad karma, so to speak, promotes the ceaseless suffering within samsara. However, this perception is a wild underestimate of the pervasiveness and power of karma. 

          First of all, we need to recognize that the word “karma” has a broader meaning, apart from its role in samsara.  “Karma” more literally means “action” or “duty” and is used to refer to the obligations that a person lives under, particularly those engendered by his caste.  Let us cite a few examples.

          In the Rig Veda “karma” can refer to obligations, sacred duties, or just plain works or actions.  Here, side by side, are some verses from the Rig Veda and their 1896 translations by Ralph Griffith, along with my analysis. 

Here we see then, that “karma” has a meaning apart from samsara, which is as it should be since the Rig Veda does not express a belief in samsara as a set of rebirths.  Crucial for our purposes here is the fact that this non-samsara meaning of “karma” as simply “action” or “duty” continues through all of the later periods of Hindu literature as well. That is to say, karma-as-duty does not get replaced by karma-as-generating-samsara, but the new term exists right along with the older notion.   

Here are three quotations from the Code of Manu:[7]

          So then, how does karma, the concept of action, turn into the concept of cause and effect?  The key is that the actions (karmāni) begin to be seen as causes that, regardless of other outcomes, will also always produce certain unavoidable effects.  And, if that is so, it makes sense to introduce another general category, namely exactly those consequences of actions that will invariably follow upon our deeds.  Thus, in contemporary Western philosophical parlance, actions can have contingent consequences and necessary consequences.  This further category of necessary consequences does, indeed, arise in the development of Hinduism.  In the Bhagavad Gita, for example, there are frequent references to the fruit of karma (karmaphala), the certain effects of karma. 

Now, those who know a little bit about the Gita are aware of its fundamental message, namely that people should not to work for the fruit of their karma, but to focus on Krishna himself.  Why should that be the case?  It is so because, as we see in the above quotation already, good deeds as well as evil ones bring about the consequence of samsara. 

          Everyone is familiar with the notion that as long as you do evil deeds, you will suffer seemingly endless reincarnations.  Thus Krishna declares:

However, good deeds may not result in as much immediate suffering, but they only prolong the agony. 

But do not for a moment think that you can trick your way out of the dilemma by simply doing nothing:

If you do evil, you will be reborn; if you do good you will be reborn; if you do neither you will still be reborn. Now, it would be instructive to follow the Gita for its proposal for an escape from samsara, namely devotion to Krishna, but this attempted solution is not the focus of this paper.[11]  My point is that if even good actions and no actions at all have roughly the same results as evil actions, then karma, even though a gigantic obstacle, is nothing like sin in this respect.  The word “sin,” after all, is usually reserved for something evil.  That fact is the reason, then, why karma and sin are not equivalent. 

Words and Concepts for Sin in Hinduism

          It would be tempting at this point to declare that since karma is not really sin, there is no “real sin” in Hinduism, as some writers have done.   Robert Hume writes,

In Hinduism there is no real sin.  Lamentable philosophic ignorance (avidya) and practical violation of caste rules are defects which will entail continued reincarnation.  However, all apparent evils are overcome by immersion of oneself in the non-moral Brahma (sic) and by compliance with hereditary social conventions.[12]

But this is not right either.  Even if Hume had phrased his observation with more sensitivity toward the diversity within Hinduism, he would still be wrong in saying that Hinduism has no “real sin.” Hume only recognizes “lamentable philosophic ignorance (avidya) and practical violation of caste rules,” which he considers to be “defects” only.[13]  This judgment is very difficult to sustain in light of the reality of Hindu thought. 

          I have already speculated why this “karma-or-nothing” attitude seems to have become so deeply ingrained in Western depictions of Hinduism. Certain Eastern depictions of Hinduism undoubtedly bear at least partial responsibility, as they attempt to make a contrast between Christianity, which is seen depicted as intolerant and condemnatory,  in contrast to Hinduism, which allegedly does not judge your actions.[14]  So, let us take a look at some of the words and concepts that really do mean “sin” within a Hindu context. Remember as we go along that the question is not how important they are, but whether they exist in a substantial, non-trivial way, and of that there should be no question.[15] 

A.  Pāpa

          It would be downright silly to expect any one word to carry only one specific meaning.  The four terms we are looking at in this paper all have wide-ranging applications and overlap frequently.  Among them, pāpa is perhaps the most frequently used and most obvious general Sanskrit term for “sin.”  It appears to be the least technical, referring essentially to any evil act, whether one wants to place it in the context of religious transgression or just plain immoral, hurtful actions.  Look at the following three quotations from the Gita:

Thus we see that “pāpa” can refer to an evil action, the evil that happens to a person in this life because of an evil action, and the bad karma a person may incur because of an evil action.  Vyasa, the mythical collector of the Vedas and fountainhead of Vedanta, is supposed to have summarized all Vedic truth by saying:  

“To do good to others is merit; to harm others is sin.”

B.  Enas

          As far as I can tell, enas is a term that is more likely to be associated with specifically religious violations than pāpa.    One example can suffice here because, even though all words, including enas, have shades of meaning, the meaning of enas as “sin,” “violation,” or “trespass” is quite dominant. 

C.  Klesha

          On the opposite end of the spectrum, the meaning of klesha as “sin” is clearly secondary.  Its primary range of meanings includes such notions as “toil,” “trouble,” “difficulty,” “hindrance,” “obstacle,” possibly even “pain” in the sense of the pain engendered by hard work, though there is a stronger word “duhkha” for more intense agony. 

This is also the only way in which klesha appears in the Bhagavad Gita.    

Nevertheless, klesha also has a secondary meaning that places it into the context of “sin.”  When I say “secondary,” I do not mean to imply that it is less important, only that linguistically this meaning of the word is derived from the earlier meaning.  Conceptually, it plays a crucial role in many forms of Hinduism.  Klesha in this context still means “hindrance” or “obstacle,” but now we are talking about personal mindsets and attitudes that interfere with the attainment of liberation. 

The Yoga Sutra of Patanjali[18] uses the term extensively. 

D.  Adharma

Let us return to one of the verses of the Law of Manu that we mentioned above. 

Hinduism is all about following the dharma.  The dharma is personal, religious, societal, and cultural.  It prescribes proper deportment, worship, rules of interaction, marriage, occupation,  and the caste system, to mention just a few of its all-pervasive dimensions.  Adharma refers to anything that violates the Hindu way of life, as it were.  It absorbs the three previous concepts, while adding cultural infractions.  Thus, evil and immorality are adharma, but so is violating social customs along the line of “this just isn’t done.”  As a brief example, consider the rules of marriage.  The proper ceremony is to be done by a Brahmin priest with the sacred fire in a complex ritual.  It would be adharma for two persons of different castes to marry.  However, if two people of the same caste go off privately and take their vows in the presence of a deity, they are within the dharma, even if their action is considered undesirable.

Conclusion

          Let me reiterate that the main obstacle in Hinduism is karma and its fruits.  However, this fact does not mean that karma is the same thing as sin.  In fact, we have now seen that there are separate words and concepts for sin, and these sins will directly influence a person’s karma. 

          Now if there is a lesson in all of this, it is that--all polemic to the contrary--Hindus cannot dispense with right and wrong any more than any other people can.  Some people may find the idea of a religion without sin attractive, but just because someone may say that this is the case for Hinduism doesn’t make it so.  Hinduism recognizes the fact that humans fall short of objective standards, and that should not surprise us. 

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. Romans 2:15

Winfried Corduan, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Philosophy & Religion
Taylor University

www.wincorduan.com wncorduan@tayloru.edu

Notes