KARMAN (KARMA). - In the *Rgveda* (v. RGVEDA) the word k., “the work” par excellence, designates the sacrificial rite and the fruit that results from it in this life and the next. When, in the age of the *Upanisads* (v.), faith in the omnipotence of the rite waned, human action and its effect gained importance and likewise took the name of k. Every action, good or bad, besides its natural effect, has a supersensible one in k., the merit or demerit inherent in human deeds, which adheres to the soul in ways variously imagined by the authors of different philosophical systems, yet always with the same result: joy or sorrow as reward or punishment for good or bad conduct. The so-called destiny of man does not depend on blind chance, but on k.; who is born rich and who poor, who healthy and who sick, who well-formed and who deformed is the effect of the k. of a previous existence.
The retribution of merit and demerit is not exhausted indeed in the brief span of a single life; there is always a residue of k. when death arrives, and this determines rebirth in that form of existence which corresponds to each one’s merits: in heaven, on earth, or in hell. The transmigration of souls or *saṃsāra*, dependent on k., exists from eternity, but man can escape the tormenting sequence of births and deaths through liberation (*mokṣa*, *nirvāṇa*), which is the end toward which, by different paths, the religions of India strive. The first clear testimony of a belief in k. is found in that passage of the *Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad* (III, 2, 13), which says, referring to the dialogue between Ārtabha and Yājñavalkya: “And if they speak of anything, they speak of action (k.); and if they praise anything, they praise action, because one becomes good through good actions, bad through evil ones.” And further on (IV, 4, 5): “Man is all desire, and what his will is, such is his action; what his action is, such is his lot.” The term *saṃsāra* is not yet used; it appears for the first time in the later *Katha-upaniṣad* (I, 3, 7). In Buddhism, which denies the substantial and permanent soul, k. cannot be an affection of the soul, and therefore one should not speak of transmigration, but of “rebirth.” K. is conceived as a transcendent force that ensures the continuation, beyond death, of the deceased’s psycho-physical existence so that every remainder of merit or demerit may receive its reward. “But k. is blind,” object the followers of Nyāya, “and therefore it needs to be regulated by the Supreme Soul, that is, God.”