(惡業,業報)업(業, 산스크리트어: कर्म 카르마)는 인도계 종교에서의 인과율 개념이다. 원래는 행위를 뜻하는 말로서 인과(因果)의 연쇄관계에 놓이는 것이며 단독적으로 존재하지 않는다. 현재의 행위는 그 이전의 행위의 결과로 생기는 것이며, 그것은 또한 미래의 행위에 대한 원인으로 작용한다. 거기에는 과거 · 현재 · 미래와 같이 잠재적으로 지속하는 일종의 브라만교 사회에서는 어떤 특정의 카스트에 태어난다는 것도 그에 상응하는 전생의 행위가 있었기 때문이라고 한다. 업 사상은 광범위하게 인도 제종교의 전체 속에 들어 있어서 불교 및 자이나교에서도 특색있는 업설(業說)을 전개하였으나, 인도사상의 정통(正統)인 브라만교나 힌두교에서 가장 강조되었다. 초월적인 힘이 감득(感得)되어 있으며 흔히 시간(時間: Kala) · 천명(天命: Daiva) · 천성(天性: Svalhava) 등의 말로 표현되고 있다. Karma (/ˈkɑːrmə/; Sanskrit: कर्म, IPA: [ˈkɐɽmɐ] (About this soundlisten); Pali: kamma) means action, work, or deed.[1] The term also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect, often descriptively called the principle of karma, wherein intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect):[2] good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and happier rebirths, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and bad rebirths.[3][4] The philosophy of karma is closely associated with the idea of rebirth in many schools of Indian religions (particularly Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism),[5] as well as Taoism.[6] In these schools, karma in the present affects one's future in the current life, as well as the nature and quality of future lives—one's saṃsāra.[7][8] The term karma (Sanskrit: कर्म; Pali: kamma) refers to both the executed 'deed, work, action, act' and the 'object, intent'.[3] Wilhelm Halbfass (2000) explains karma (karman) by contrasting it with the Sanskrit word kriya:[3] whereas kriya is the activity along with the steps and effort in action, karma is (1) the executed action as a consequence of that activity, as well as (2) the intention of the actor behind an executed action or a planned action (described by some scholars[9] as metaphysical residue left in the actor). A good action creates good karma, as does good intent. A bad action creates bad karma, as does bad intent.[3] Difficulty in arriving at a definition of karma arises because of the diversity of views among the schools of Hinduism; some, for example, consider karma and rebirth linked and simultaneously essential, some consider karma but not rebirth to be essential, and a few discuss and conclude karma and rebirth to be flawed fiction.[10] Buddhism and Jainism have their own karma precepts. Thus, karma has not one, but multiple definitions and different meanings.[11] It is a concept whose meaning, importance, and scope varies between the various traditions that originated in India, and various schools in each of these traditions. Wendy O'Flaherty claims that, furthermore, there is an ongoing debate regarding whether karma is a theory, a model, a paradigm, a metaphor, or a metaphysical stance.[12] Principle of karma Karma also refers to a conceptual principle that originated in India, often descriptively called the principle of karma, and sometimes the karma theory or the law of karma.[13] In the context of theory, karma is complex and difficult to define.[12] Different schools of Indology derive different definitions for the concept from ancient Indian texts; their definition is some combination of (1) causality that may be ethical or non-ethical; (2) ethicization, i.e., good or bad actions have consequences; and (3) rebirth.[12][14] Other Indologists include in the definition that which explains the present circumstances of an individual with reference to his or her actions in past. These actions may be those in a person's current life, or, in some schools of Indian traditions, possibly actions in their past lives; furthermore, the consequences may result in current life, or a person's future lives.[12][15] The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment.[16] A common theme to theories of karma is its principle of causality.[13] This relationship between karma and causality is a central motif in all schools of Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain thought.[17] One of the earliest association of karma to causality occurs in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad of Hinduism. For example, at 4.4.5–6, it states: Now as a man is like this or like that, according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be; a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad; he becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds; And here they say that a person consists of desires, and as is his desire, so is his will; and as is his will, so is his deed; and whatever deed he does, that he will reap. — Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 7th Century BCE[18][19] The theory of karma as causation holds that: (1) executed actions of an individual affects the individual and the life he or she lives, and (2) the intentions of an individual affects the individual and the life he or she lives. Disinterested actions, or unintentional actions do not have the same positive or negative karmic effect, as interested and intentional actions. In Buddhism, for example, actions that are performed, or arise, or originate without any bad intent such as covetousness, are considered non-existent in karmic impact or neutral in influence to the individual.[20] Another causality characteristic, shared by karmic theories, is that like deeds lead to like effects. Thus, good karma produces good effect on the actor, while bad karma produces bad effect. This effect may be material, moral, or emotional—that is, one's karma affects both one's happiness and unhappiness.[17] The effect of karma need not be immediate; the effect of karma can be later in one's current life, and in some schools it extends to future lives.[21] The consequence or effects of one's karma can be described in two forms: phala and samskara. A phala (lit. 'fruit' or 'result') is the visible or invisible effect that is typically immediate or within the current life. In contrast, a samskara (Sanskrit: संस्कार) is an invisible effect, produced inside the actor because of the karma, transforming the agent and affecting his or her ability to be happy or unhappy in their current and future lives. The theory of karma is often presented in the context of samskaras.[17][22] Karl Potter (1964) and Harold Coward (1983) suggest that karmic principle can also be understood as a principle of psychology and habit.[13][23] Karma seeds habits (vāsanā), and habits create the nature of man. Karma also seeds self perception, and perception influences how one experiences life events. Both habits and self perception affect the course of one's life. Breaking bad habits is not easy: it requires conscious karmic effort.[13][24] Thus, psyche and habit, according to Potter and Coward, link karma to causality in ancient Indian literature.[13][25] The idea of karma may be compared to the notion of a person's 'character', as both are an assessment of the person and determined by that person's habitual thinking and acting.[8] Ethicization The second theme common to karma theories is ethicization. This begins with the premise that every action has a consequence,[7] which will come to fruition in either this life or a future life; thus, morally good acts will have positive consequences, whereas bad acts will

 (惡業,業報)업(業, 산스크리트어: कर्म 카르마)는 인도계 종교에서의 인과율 개념이다. 원래는 행위를 뜻하는 말로서 인과(因果)의 연쇄관계에 놓이는 것이며 단독적으로 존재하지 않는다. 현재의 행위는 그 이전의 행위의 결과로 생기는 것이며, 그것은 또한 미래의 행위에 대한 원인으로 작용한다. 거기에는 과거 · 현재 · 미래와 같이 잠재적으로 지속하는 일종의 브라만교 사회에서는 어떤 특정의 카스트에 태어난다는 것도 그에 상응하는 전생의 행위가 있었기 때문이라고 한다. 업 사상은 광범위하게 인도 제종교의 전체 속에 들어 있어서 불교 및 자이나교에서도 특색있는 업설(業說)을 전개하였으나, 인도사상의 정통(正統)인 브라만교나 힌두교에서 가장 강조되었다. 초월적인 힘이 감득(感得)되어 있으며 흔히 시간(時間: Kala) · 천명(天命: Daiva) · 천성(天性: Svalhava) 등의 말로 표현되고 있다.

Karma (/ˈkɑːrmə/; Sanskrit: कर्म, IPA: [ˈkɐɽmɐ] (About this soundlisten); Pali: kamma) means action, work, or deed.[1] The term also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect, often descriptively called the principle of karma, wherein intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect):[2] good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and happier rebirths, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and bad rebirths.[3][4]

The philosophy of karma is closely associated with the idea of rebirth in many schools of Indian religions (particularly Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism),[5] as well as Taoism.[6] In these schools, karma in the present affects one's future in the current life, as well as the nature and quality of future lives—one's saṃsāra.[7][8]

The term karma (Sanskrit: कर्म; Pali: kamma) refers to both the executed 'deed, work, action, act' and the 'object, intent'.[3]

Wilhelm Halbfass (2000) explains karma (karman) by contrasting it with the Sanskrit word kriya:[3] whereas kriya is the activity along with the steps and effort in action, karma is (1) the executed action as a consequence of that activity, as well as (2) the intention of the actor behind an executed action or a planned action (described by some scholars[9] as metaphysical residue left in the actor). A good action creates good karma, as does good intent. A bad action creates bad karma, as does bad intent.[3]

Difficulty in arriving at a definition of karma arises because of the diversity of views among the schools of Hinduism; some, for example, consider karma and rebirth linked and simultaneously essential, some consider karma but not rebirth to be essential, and a few discuss and conclude karma and rebirth to be flawed fiction.[10] Buddhism and Jainism have their own karma precepts. Thus, karma has not one, but multiple definitions and different meanings.[11] It is a concept whose meaning, importance, and scope varies between the various traditions that originated in India, and various schools in each of these traditions. Wendy O'Flaherty claims that, furthermore, there is an ongoing debate regarding whether karma is a theory, a model, a paradigm, a metaphor, or a metaphysical stance.[12]

Principle of karma

Karma also refers to a conceptual principle that originated in India, often descriptively called the principle of karma, and sometimes the karma theory or the law of karma.[13]

In the context of theory, karma is complex and difficult to define.[12] Different schools of Indology derive different definitions for the concept from ancient Indian texts; their definition is some combination of (1) causality that may be ethical or non-ethical; (2) ethicization, i.e., good or bad actions have consequences; and (3) rebirth.[12][14] Other Indologists include in the definition that which explains the present circumstances of an individual with reference to his or her actions in past. These actions may be those in a person's current life, or, in some schools of Indian traditions, possibly actions in their past lives; furthermore, the consequences may result in current life, or a person's future lives.[12][15] The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment.[16]

A common theme to theories of karma is its principle of causality.[13] This relationship between karma and causality is a central motif in all schools of Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain thought.[17] One of the earliest association of karma to causality occurs in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad of Hinduism. For example, at 4.4.5–6, it states:

Now as a man is like this or like that,

according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be;

a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad;

he becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds;

And here they say that a person consists of desires,

and as is his desire, so is his will;

and as is his will, so is his deed;

and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.

— Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 7th Century BCE[18][19]

The theory of karma as causation holds that: (1) executed actions of an individual affects the individual and the life he or she lives, and (2) the intentions of an individual affects the individual and the life he or she lives. Disinterested actions, or unintentional actions do not have the same positive or negative karmic effect, as interested and intentional actions. In Buddhism, for example, actions that are performed, or arise, or originate without any bad intent such as covetousness, are considered non-existent in karmic impact or neutral in influence to the individual.[20]

Another causality characteristic, shared by karmic theories, is that like deeds lead to like effects. Thus, good karma produces good effect on the actor, while bad karma produces bad effect. This effect may be material, moral, or emotional—that is, one's karma affects both one's happiness and unhappiness.[17] The effect of karma need not be immediate; the effect of karma can be later in one's current life, and in some schools it extends to future lives.[21]

The consequence or effects of one's karma can be described in two forms: phala and samskara. A phala (lit. 'fruit' or 'result') is the visible or invisible effect that is typically immediate or within the current life. In contrast, a samskara (Sanskrit: संस्कार) is an invisible effect, produced inside the actor because of the karma, transforming the agent and affecting his or her ability to be happy or unhappy in their current and future lives. The theory of karma is often presented in the context of samskaras.[17][22]

Karl Potter (1964) and Harold Coward (1983) suggest that karmic principle can also be understood as a principle of psychology and habit.[13][23] Karma seeds habits (vāsanā), and habits create the nature of man. Karma also seeds self perception, and perception influences how one experiences life events. Both habits and self perception affect the course of one's life. Breaking bad habits is not easy: it requires conscious karmic effort.[13][24] Thus, psyche and habit, according to Potter and Coward, link karma to causality in ancient Indian literature.[13][25] The idea of karma may be compared to the notion of a person's 'character', as both are an assessment of the person and determined by that person's habitual thinking and acting.[8]

Ethicization

The second theme common to karma theories is ethicization. This begins with the premise that every action has a consequence,[7] which will come to fruition in either this life or a future life; thus, morally good acts will have positive consequences, whereas bad acts will