Editing Karma (section)

===The problem of evil===
There has been an ongoing debate about karma theory and how it answers the [[problem of evil]] and related problem of [[theodicy]]. The problem of evil is a significant question debated in monotheistic religions with two beliefs:<ref>{{cite book |author=R. Green |year=2005 |chapter=Theodicy |title=The Encyclopedia of Religion |edition=2nd |editor=Lindsay Jones |volume=12 |publisher=Macmillan Reference |isbn=978-0-02-865733-2}}</ref>

# There is one God who is absolutely good and compassionate ([[Omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]]); and
# That one God knows absolutely everything ([[Omniscience|omniscient]]) and is all powerful ([[Omnipotence|omnipotent]]).

The problem of evil is then stated in formulations such as, "why does the omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God allow any evil and suffering to exist in the world?" Sociologist [[Max Weber]] extended the problem of evil [[Sociology of Religion (book)|to Eastern traditions]].<ref>Max Weber (Translated by Fischoff, 1993), The Sociology of Religion, Beacon Press, {{ISBN|978-0-8070-4205-2}}, pp. 129–153</ref>

The problem of evil, in the context of karma, has been long discussed in Eastern traditions, both in theistic and non-theistic schools; for example, in ''[[Uttara Mīmāṃsā]]'' Sutras Book 2 Chapter 1;<ref>Francis Clooney (2005), in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism (Editor: [[Gavin Flood]]), Wiley-Blackwell, {{ISBN|0-631-21535-2}}, pp. 454–455</ref><ref>Francis Clooney (1989), "Evil, Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom: Vedanta's theology of Karma", ''Journal of Religion'', Vol. 69, pp 530–548</ref> the 8th century arguments by [[Adi Shankara|Adi Sankara]] in [[Brahma Sutras|''Brahma Sutra'']] ''[[Bhashya|bhasya]]'' where he posits that God cannot reasonably be the cause of the world because there exists moral evil, inequality, cruelty and suffering in the world;<ref name="bilimoria">P. Bilimoria (2007), Karma's suffering: A Mimamsa solution to the problem of evil, in Indian Ethics (Editors: Bilimoria et al.), Volume 1, Ashgate Publishing, {{ISBN|978-0-7546-3301-3}}, pp. 171–189</ref><ref>See Kumarila's ''Slokavarttika''; for English translation of parts and discussions: P. Bilimoria (1990), "Hindu doubts about God {{en dash}} Towards a Mimamsa Deconstruction", ''International Philosophical Quarterly'', 30(4), pp. 481–499</ref> and the 11th century theodicy discussion by [[Ramanuja]] in ''[[Sri Bhasya]]''.<ref name="bilimoria2013" /> Epics such as the ''[[Mahabharata]]'', for example, suggest three prevailing theories in ancient India as to why good and evil exist {{en dash}} one being that everything is ordained by God, another being karma, and a third citing chance events (''yadrccha'', यदृच्छा).<ref name="ehudson" /><ref>Manmatha Nath Dutt (1895), English translation of The Mahabharata, Udyoga Parva, Chapter 159, verse 15</ref> The ''Mahabharata'', which includes Hindu deity [[Vishnu]] in the [[Vishnu#Avatars|avatar]] of [[Krishna]] as one of the central characters, debates the nature and existence of suffering from these three perspectives, and includes a theory of suffering as arising from an interplay of chance events (such as floods and other events of nature), circumstances created by past human actions, and the current desires, volitions, dharma, adharma and current actions (''purusakara'') of people.<ref name="ehudson" /><ref>Gregory Bailey (1983), Suffering in the Mahabharata: Draupadi and Yudhishthira, Purusartha, No. 7, pp. 109–129</ref><ref>[[Alf Hiltebeitel]] (2001), Rethinking the Mahabharata: A Reader's Guide to the Education of the Dharma King, University of Chicago Press, {{ISBN|978-0-226-34053-1}}, Chapters 2 and 5</ref> However, while karma theory in the ''Mahabharata'' presents alternative perspectives on the problem of evil and suffering, it offers no conclusive answer.<ref name="ehudson">Emily Hudson (2012), Disorienting Dharma: Ethics and the Aesthetics of Suffering in the Mahabharata, Oxford University Press, {{ISBN|978-0-19-986078-4}}, pp. 178–217</ref><ref>P.B. Mehta (2007), The ethical irrationality of the world {{en dash}} Weber and Hindu Ethics, in Indian Ethics (Editors: Billimoria et al.), Volume 1, Ashgate, {{ISBN|978-0-7546-3301-3}}, pp. 363–375</ref>

Other scholars<ref>Ursula Sharma (1973), Theodicy and the doctrine of karma, ''Man'', Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 347–364</ref> suggest that [[Nontheism|nontheistic]] Indian religious traditions do not assume an omnibenevolent creator, and some<ref>The Nyaya-Vaisesika school of Hinduism is one of the exceptions where the premise is similar to the Christian concept of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent creator</ref> theistic schools do not define or characterize their God(s) as monotheistic Western religions do and the deities have colorful, complex personalities; the Indian deities are personal and cosmic facilitators, and in some schools conceptualized like Plato's [[Demiurge]].<ref name="bilimoria2013">P. Bilimoria (2013), Toward an Indian Theodicy, in The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil (Editors: McBrayer and Howard-Snyder), 1st Edition, John Wiley & Sons, {{ISBN|978-0-470-67184-9}}, Chapter 19</ref> Therefore, the problem of theodicy in many schools of major Indian religions is not significant, or at least is of a different nature than in Western religions.<ref>G. Obeyesekere (I968), Theodicy, sin and salvation in a sociology of Buddhism, in Practical religion (Ed. Edmund Leach), Cambridge University Press, {{ISBN|978-0-521-05525-3}}</ref> Many Indian religions place greater emphasis on developing the karma principle for first cause and innate justice with Man as focus, rather than developing religious principles with the nature and powers of God and divine judgment as focus.<ref>B. Reichenbach (1998), Karma and the Problem of Evil, in Philosophy of Religion Toward a Global Perspective (Editor: G.E. Kessler), Wadsworth, {{ISBN|978-0-534-50549-3}}, pp. 248–255</ref> Some scholars, particularly of the [[Nyaya|Nyaya school]] of Hinduism and Sankara in ''Brahma Sutra bhasya'', have posited that karma doctrine implies existence of god, who administers and affects the person's environment given that person's karma, but then acknowledge that it makes karma as violable, contingent and unable to address the problem of evil.<ref>Bruce R. Reichenbach (1989), Karma, Causation, and Divine Intervention, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 135–149</ref> Arthur Herman states that karma-transmigration theory solves all three historical formulations to the problem of evil while acknowledging the theodicy insights of Sankara and Ramanuja.<ref>Arthur Herman, The problem of evil and Indian thought, 2nd Edition, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, {{ISBN|81-208-0753-7}}, pp. 5 with Part II and III of the book</ref>

Some theistic Indian religions, such as Sikhism, suggest evil and suffering are a human phenomenon and arises from the karma of individuals.<ref>P. Singh, Sikh perspectives on health and suffering: A focus on Sikh theodicy, in Religion, Health and Suffering (Editors: John Hinnells and Roy Porter), Routledge, {{ISBN|978-0-7103-0611-1}}, pp. 111–132</ref> In other theistic schools such as those in Hinduism, particularly its Nyaya school, karma is combined with [[dharma]] and evil is explained as arising from human actions and intent that is in conflict with dharma.<ref name=bilimoria2013/> In nontheistic religions such as Buddhism, Jainism and the Mimamsa school of Hinduism, karma theory is used to explain the cause of evil as well as to offer distinct ways to avoid or be unaffected by evil in the world.<ref name=bilimoria/>

Those schools of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism that rely on karma-rebirth theory have been critiqued for their theological explanation of suffering in children by birth, as the result of his or her sins in a past life.<ref>Whitley Kaufman (2005), Karma, rebirth, and the problem of evil, Philosophy East & West, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 15–32</ref> Others disagree, and consider the critique as flawed and a misunderstanding of the karma theory.<ref>Chadha and Trakakis (2007), Karma and the Problem of Evil: A Response to Kaufman, Philosophy East & West, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 533–556</ref>