Karma or Action (Introduction)

Karma (action) is the third category, in the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika philosophy. After the root ‘kṛ’ the suffix ‘man’ is added and the resulting form is karma which meaning is kriyā.^[1] Karma means physical movement.^[2] Like guṇa, karma also inheres in substance. Though it inheres in dravya, it is neither dravya nor guṇa; it is an independent category. A guṇa is a permanent and tolerable feature of dravya, while a karma is transitory feature of it.

Kaṇāda gives the definition of karma thus:

ekadravyamaguṇaṃ saṃyoga-vibhāgeṣvanapekṣakāraṇamiti karmalakṣaṇam.^[3]

It means that karma exists in one substance at a time; it is not a quality and it is the immediate cause of conjunction and disjunction. For example, a ball is a substance, the movement of the ball remains in the ball but it is not a guṇa. When a ball is thrown to a house-top from the earth, there is the disjunction of the ball with the earth and conjunction with the housetop. Here the movement of the ball is the cause of the conjunction of the ball with the housetop and the disjunction of the ball with earth.^[4]

According to Śivāditya, that is known as karma which has the generality of actionness (karmatvajāti) and which is the non-inherent cause of the first conjunction and disjunction which are not created through any previous conjunction and disjunction.^[5]

Praśastapāda states in his bhāṣya that a karma exists in one dravya only. It is momentary; it remains in a mūrtadravya (corporeal substance). It is created through heaviness, fluidity, effort and conjunction. Moreover, karma is the unconditional, non-inherent cause of conjunction and disjunction.^[6]

According to Keśava Miśra motion is karma.^[7] Like guṇa, karma also exists in dravya. However, it exists in the relation of inherence only in those substances which are not all pervasive, i.e., mūrta (limited). It is the cause of subsequent conjunction, when the previous conjunction is destroyed by disjunction.^[8]

Annaṃbhaṭṭa has described karma as that which has motion.^[9] But in the Dīpikā he gives two definitions of karma.

Firstly, he defines karma as that which itself is different from conjunction, but at the same time is the non-inherent cause of conjunction.

(saṃyoga bhinnatve sati saṃyogāsamavāyikāraṇaṃ karma).^[10]

Secondly, he says that karma is that which possesses the generality karmatva. In the first definition, the term saṃyogabhinnatve sati is added to avoid over-pervasion to saṃyoga. If it is only said that karma is the non-inherent cause of conjunction then this definition will be applicable to saṃyoga also for sometimes a conjunction may be the asamavāyikāraṇa of another conjunction, e.g., the conjunction of the hand with the book is the asamavāyikāraṇa of the conjunction of the book with the whole body. Therefore, the word saṃyogabhinnatve sati is added in the definition to prevents the defect of ativyāpti in this definition. Saṃyoga cannot be different from saṃyoga itself. If saṃyogasamavāyikāraṇa is not added in the definition, then the definition saṃyogabhinnatve sati will be over-pervasive to dravya, for dravya is different from saṃyoga. But dravya is not the non-inherent cause of saṃyoga. Thus the ativyāpti is avoided.^[11]

Annaṃbhaṭṭa gives the second definition of karma with the help of its generic attribute (jāti). Karma is the substratum of the genus karmatva. According to the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣikas, the generic attribute karmatva (actionhood) is proved by perception.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Gopa, Judhisthir, (ed.), Tarkasaṃgraha, p. 18

[2]:

Chatterjee, S. and Datta, D., An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, p. 234

[3]:

Vaiśeṣikasūtra, 1.1.17

[4]:

Bhattachārjya, Jyotsna, Bharatiya Darsan, pp.188-189

[5]:

karma karmatvajātiyogi, ādyasaṃyogavibhāgayorasamavāyikāraṇam ceti. Saptapadārthī, p. 50

[6]:

Vaiśeṣikadarśanam with Praśastapādabhāṣya, pp. 241-243

[7]:

calanātmakaṃ karma. Tarkabhāṣā, p.491

[8]:

Ibid

[9]:

calanātmakaṃ karma. Tarkasaṃgraha, p. 60

[10]:

Ibid., p. 5

[11]:

cf. Gopa, Judhisthir, Tarkasaṃgraha, pp.18-19.