Is the Theory of Karman the Solution to the Problem of Evil? Some Thoughts from Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper addresses A.Herman’s (and others’) claim that Sanskrit authors are not engaged in theodicy (at least according to the Western understanding of the issue) because they share a rational and viable solution to the problem of evil, namely, the theory of karman.

The introductory section displays the plan and content of the paper, and gives a few (very general) reasons why Herman’s claim cannot be accepted. Then the author moves to analyzing the Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta theory of karman, which provides a clear example of the use of the theory of karman which conflicts with Herman’s characterization of it. Briefly, while Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta authors did develope a theory of karman, they did not employ it as a complete solution to the problem of evil.

The paper’s presentation of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta’s views on God, evil, and free will is well informed and contributes to scholarship both on Vedantin schools of philosophy and theodicy in general. Particularly, it has the merit of introducing challenging Indian materials within the global research on the problem of evil. Nonetheless, some flaws may jeopardize the overall value of the paper. For this reason, I hold that some clarifications can improve the work.   

First, the purpose of the paper needs to be explained in a more clear way. Section 1, lines 25-28, affirms that:

a) the article questions Herman’s interpretation;

b) and look at a case which does not fall under Herman’s characterization of the theory of karman.

According to the author, (b) is a reason to rejecting (a) (see section 1.3, lines 183-187). Such a claim sounds a bit misleading, since task (a) is logical independent of task (b). Objections against Herman’s interpretation of the theory of karman can indeed be advanced (and the author in fact does it in section 1.2) simply by showing that there is not an unambiguous theory of karman to which all Sanskrit authors assent. Conversely, even if Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta theory of karman cannot be traced back to Herman’s schema, one cannot infer from this that Herman is wrong, since it may be the case that Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta theory of karman is a sui generis theory, differing from the general pattern of thought of other Vedantin schools (the author seems to subscribe this view in section 1.1, lines 50-57). Consequently, in order to make their reference to Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta theory of karman significant, the author should prove that such theory is in line with all the other Vedantin proposals, but, I’m afraid, this is exactly what the author at last denies (see section 3.6, lines 527-537).

Second, the paper shows the tendency to go out of focus. For one hand, given task (a), I will expect a more detailed discussion of Herman’s view. But, after section 1, there are virtually no reference to Herman’s interpretation of the theory of karman. For the other, interests in the construal of the Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta theory of karman appear here and then autonomous from task (b) (I find such autonomous interest for the presentation of the Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta theory of karman one point of strength of the paper, because it calls attention to ideas valuable and relevant to the problem of evil, which deserve to be debated in the global research in theodicy).  As to the first remark, if the author intends to focus on reasons against Herman they should provide a more sustained discussion of his view and why it is defeated by a historical analysis of Hindu materials. Otherwise, if they like focusing on Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta, they should highlight why authors from the school provide a counterexample to Herman’s interpretation. For example, the author could introduce a few reference to Herman’s work in the sections presenting Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta theory of karman.

Further (not substantial) problems concern the fact that while Rāmānuja and Veńkaṭanātha gave relevant arguments for compatibilism towards free will and God’s omnipotence (which is one the basic difficulties of the logical approach to the problem of evil, see Mackie, John L. 1955. “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind, 64: 200–12), such arguments never interact with contemporary discussion on theodicy. 

Finally, the author assumes that scholarship on Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta does not adequately pay attention to non Sanskrit sources. However, I find that such a claim is too bold (e.g., see Sydnor, J.P. 2014. “Jaimini, Sankara, and the Alvars: Ramanuja’s Enduring Synthesis,” Journal of Vaishnava Studies, 22(2): 5-22; Pande, R. 2006. “Srivaishnavism”. In J.S.Grewal, ed., Religious Movement and Institutions in Medieval India, Oxford: OUP, Vol. VII.2, 110-120); and plays no role in the paper (after section 2.2, I would have expected a detailed discussion of how Tamil sources shape Rāmānuja and Veńkaṭanātha theorizations, but this is not the case, Veńkaṭanātha being discussed very shortly in section 4).

In light of this considerations, my suggestion is to rewrite the last paragraph of the first section in order to clarify better what the author intends to focus on. Accordingly, the author should  introduce a few reference to Herman’s work and highlight how Herman’s view are defeated by a presentation of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta theory of karman. Possibly, some mentions to works addressing non Sanskrit sources would provide more complete informations (otherwise I would cut off reference to this issue at section 2.1, lines 212-215). Finally, I suggest reducing the sections devoted to Rāmānuja, and expand how Veńkaṭanātha introduces fresh ideas in his systematization of the doctrine.

Author Response

Many thanks for these thoughtful comments. I changed section 1 to explain better the connection of what the reviewer calls a) and b) and I changed correspondingly also the conclusions. Thanks also for pointing out Mackie's article.
The reviewer claims that I said that there is not enough scholarship on Maṇipravāḷam and Tamil Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta. Had I said it, this would have been wrong and they are right in pointing it out. However, I only wrote "Given the fact that most research on Sanskrit philosophy focuses on Sanskrit texts".

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very instructive and interesting essay that deals with an important and all-pervading topic. It has been well-structured, written in lucid language, and the style is also very engaging. It will be a valuable contribution to the field of Vedānta, if not of philosophy in general. 

A couple of suggestions for changes: the Tamil translations quoted from Aiyangar's book are rather free, so it might be worth producing more philological ones. And I have suggested some changes to the translation of the passage from the RTS which is in Manipravalam.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Many thanks for the thoughtful comments and for the care with which you suggested specific improvements to the text. I generally accepted all your corrections. Due to time constraints (I was allowed only 5 days for the corrections) I could not check the commentaries on the interpretation of aḻi (in RTS 12), which anyway does not affect the overall argument. I added a reference to your interpretation in the fn. Similarly, due to the same time constraints I could not dwell on the topic of kings taking up the karman of their subjects. Thanks for pointing it out, I will keep in mind.