Reconsidering 'Karma' (effort/action)

‘Nishkaamakarma’ (effort without expectation) is not just a spiritual path but a logical applicable reality. Let us discuss it for now.

The desire does not impact the result. Positive or negative expectations are not going to make any difference in the quality or quantity of results. Our expectations do not make any effect on the results but our efforts do reflect on the size and shape of the results. It is superstitious to believe that positive or negative expectations can invite their corresponding results. But it is realistic to believe that good or bad efforts can draw matching results. Results are objectively neither positive nor negative, they are just results of efforts. But they are either positive or negative subjectively based on the need and context of the affected. For instance, one’s efforts of feeding children may positively help the hungry ones and at the same time may negatively cause vomiting for the ones already full. Though it’s a silly example, it's the reality with all such efforts and their results in their naive sense.

Hence, ‘Nishkaamakarma’ is not something spiritual without any provability as happens to most spiritual concepts. All ‘Karmas’ are ‘Niskaamakarmas’ in real sense regardless of the ‘Kaama’ of the doer. Doer’s Kaama or expectation has objectively no role in any results, but his effort has. If the doer puts positive efforts he reaps positive results and viceversa. It happens without any regard to the kind of expectations of the doer. It solely reflects the quality and quantity of efforts of the doer. Doer can not desire for good or bad results out of his actions, it will naturally result in corresponding effects on the affected. Even good actions may not generate good results depending on the need and contexts of the affected. Sometimes good efforts of the doer may implicate badly on the affected as mentioned in the example of feeding children.

Here, we need to understand ‘Karma’ with its bidimensional quality. Goodness of an action must be perceived from two angles: doer’s angle and the affected angle. Goodness of an effort can be judged from the intention of the doer and from the effect on the affected. If a good act of the doer results badly on the affected, the doer can not be blamed for its negative effects. On the other hand, if a bad act of the doer results positively on the affected, the doer can not claim its credit too. An ideal effort or result must be bidimensionally fit both from the doer’s side and the affected side.

A doer needs to consider the quality and quantity of his efforts with his intention of the results on the affected when he sets out for an action. Once it is done, doer does not bother with the effects of results of his efforts at all. And, the botheration can do nothing with the result any more once it’s done. Don’t mistake intention with expectation here. Intention can influence the effort and thereby the result. Good intention creates higher probability for good effort and good effort generates higher probability for good result. Negativity works for negative probabilities. Reciprocity of quality or quantity in efforts and results is only probable not certain anyway.

Finally, there can be differences in appreciation of results by the affected. The need and context of the affected determine the quality of appreciation of the result of an effort. Though the reciprocity of effort and result meets the bidimensional symmetry of their quality of effect, sometimes the affected does not appreciate all of them. Gifting someone a pen by somebody is good from the doer's intention as well as by the results on the affected too. But if the gift is not positively accepted or appreciated by the other, the result of the act is still compromising.

So, what is ideal is ‘Nishkaamakarma’ and that is intelligent too and there is nothing spiritual in it.