The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v2.c40.s10.44

v2.c40.s10.44

³ This is made clear by BAU. iv. 4. 3 ff., which Jacobi (*Die Entwicklung der Gottesidee bei den Indern*, p. 9) wrongly ignores in his contention that Karman was regarded as a transcendent power bringing into being a new psychic complex, no permanent self being known. It is also very dubious if we can accept his view that the origin of Karman in a philosophic sense is to be found in the Mīmāṅsā doctrine of Apūrva, a mysterious entity, which attaches itself to the soul of man when he has offered sacrifice and clings to him until such time as his action bears its fruit (cf. Keith, *Karma-Mīmāṁsā*, pp. 36, 73 ff., 89). This theory was naturally enough evoked by the fact that the sacrifice often did not reap any immediate fruit, and it was, therefore, necessary to provide something to preserve continuity. But we need not believe this bizarre speculation very old; it can hardly have been needed so long as any real belief in the Vedic gods survived; in the Mīmāṅsā that has wholly disappeared. In the Jain theory Karman is definitely material (von Glasenapp, *Die Lehre vom Karman*), but it seems very dubious if Stcherbatsky (*The Central Conception of Buddhism*, p. 34) is right in ascribing a semi-material nature to Karman in Buddhism; the Jains remained on an extremely primitive level of thought which other schools earlier outlived. The idea of Karman, however, was doubtless affected *inter alia* by the conception of sin (*enas*, *āgas*) as clinging in a quasi-physical way to a man.