Generally in the West karma and reincarnation are not accepted because neither Christianity nor Judaism include it. But modern spiritually inclined people are usually oriented towards Eastern religions, which include karma and reincarnation. I have to differentiate here between Western spiritually inclined people in general and specifically Western Advaita seekers. While the latter are not necessarily concerned with it because the law of karma refers to duality, others are fascinated by it. I will call them here “New Age scene”. They have their very own theory of Karma (which occasionally is shared by Western Advaitins as well). Although the terms reincarnation or karma may be used all the same, different ideas go along with them.

 First I’d like to outline the concept of Advaita Vedanta at least in part.[1]

 While the law of karma does not present absolute truth in Advaita Vedanta, it is considered as one of the most profound laws in transactional reality. The law of karma helps the seeker to see life in a bigger context, take responsibility for the fate that befalls him or her and surrender personal desires to the universal law and order (Ishvara).

 The law of karma is the expression of the law of cause and effect, which we constantly apply in our daily life:

1. Anything you do (karma = action) will produce an effect.

2. Anything that occurs in your life is either due to an action of yours in this life or an action of yours in past lives.

3. Any good action will produce something that will affect you positively; any bad action will produce something that will affect you negatively.

4. The results of actions will come about at different speed, some needing hours, some many lifetimes.

5. The total of the potential results of your actions collected over lifetimes is called sanchitta karmas.

6. Out of this total the portion that is due at the time of your birth is called prarabdha karma. The prarabdha karma is wedded to the body-mind-system of a certain lifetime.

7. So with reference to 2 above: anything that occurs in your life is either due to an action of yours in this life or due to your prarabdha karma.

8. Anyone who has not yet realized truth, will inevitably create new karmas in his lifetime; the potential results of those are summed up under the name agami karma. The agami karma will be added to the sanchitta karma following the death of the body.

9. The resolution or exhaustion of prarabdha karma will result in the immediate death of the body.

 While Western seekers usually have some vague idea about reincarnation and karma, it is by no means as detailed as the above nine points, which form just a portion of the whole picture. Still, most of those being associated with the New Age scene have adopted the idea of reincarnation.

 As they belong to quite a secular culture, they usually dismiss the idea of God. So they assume that they themselves have chosen their particular body-mind and life-circumstances. This leads them to assume responsibility for whatever does or does not happen in their life and in that way it could have a relaxing effect. But this relaxation is usually lost because the Western mind seems to be always out to get somewhere; it is always future oriented. To be specific, connected with the idea of responsibility is another one, also foreign to the original concept of karma: typically karma is seen as another word for assignment.

 The whole theory goes like this:

1. Karma is some residue of past lives, signifying something that I did not quite understand, did not live out, a mistake that I committed or something bad that I did.

2. Because this did not get resolved in the past, I am presented with the issue again in order to get another chance to resolve it.

3. As soon as I understand the point, lived out whatever I avoided, corrected the mistake or bad deed in a similar context in this life, the issue/ assignment/ karma is resolved.

4. Good karma is not taken into consideration because if I did everything fine, I need not learn anything, so no need for an assignment (= karma).

5. The death of the body is unrelated to karma. Death can happen any time.

 So in the West the whole theory of karma remains psychological; it is still about personality development. Not surprisingly these New Age seekers usually have no interest in ending the cycle of birth and death because there still remains so much to do, to experience, to learn, to grow, to refine and to break free from.

 In traditional Advaita Vedanta the law of karma has nothing to do with assignments. Learning is most welcome for every human being; in the end personal development will help the person move from being action-oriented to being knowledge-oriented, enabling him/her to be interested in Vedanta and have the chance to realize his true nature. But learning and personal development is considered to be a mere side effect of the law of Karma.

 Karma is resolved as soon as one has experienced the result of a past action – no matter whether I learned something, whether I lived something out, whether I corrected my mistake or bad deed. If I did, fine, possibly I will produce better agami karma in this life but the point is that I had to experience the result.

 While the law of karma for the New Age scene represents a method of self-improvement, for Advaita Vedanta it is a means to relax the mind in order to open it up to know that which is beyond any karma.

 Traditional and Western Advaita have different ideas about and around Self-realization. This is not to say that there are not also different ideas within Traditional and within Western Advaita. Still I would like to point to some general features, which characterize the two.

 It seems that Self-realization[1] for Traditionalists is something which is most rarely achieved by a human being because he/she has to be exceptionally advanced in dharma, almost or actually perfect in the virtues signified in Chatushtaya Sampatti and should incorporate all the values listed in the Bhagavad Gita (chapter 13). But this is only the base - on that base for a length of time (usually meaning years, centuries or life times) with a Sampradaya (or at least renowned) teacher of Vedanta he/she has to gain firm knowledge of the scriptures through shravana and manana and then assimilate the knowledge through nidhidyasana. Only after all that self-realization is assumed to be possible (except for very very rare exceptions).

 In the West there is neither a tradition nor values or virtues as those mentioned above– even though many would also be considered as universally valid from a Western perspective. In addition the concept of karma and reincarnation is not necessarily shared amongst all Western Advaita seekers. So the standards are not only less uniform but also much lower (at least viewed from the traditional perspective).

 First I’d like to clear up a few terms that are used to signify self-realization. In the West two terms are commonly used: ”awakening” and “enlightenment”. Almost all Satsang-teachers use them interchangeably. So if someone claims to have “woken up” or calls someone else “awake“ then he/she is claiming to be enlightened themselves or considering the other person to be enlightened (i.e. self-realized).

 A few teachers in the Western Advaita scene do differentiate between awakening and enlightenment. As Dolano definitely makes this distinction, I will call them the Dolano-group, although there may be others who make the distinction. For these awakening means having realized who one is (not just read or experienced it but authentically realized it), enlightenment goes one further step: the identification with the „I-thought“ has disappeared for good.

 Some traditional Advaitins distinguish between the jnani and the jivanmukta, although, as in Western Advaita, this distinction is not uniformly made. The knowledge of the jnani is considered to be based on what he has understood through shravana and reflected upon in manana, yet, this knowledge sometimes gets covered by habitual error.

 Only the jivanmukta is thought to be self-realized. He/she is one who has gone through nidhidyasana, is well established in the virtues of Chatushtaya Sampatti, has cleared up his vasanas (identifications) at least to a degree that his mind is in peace, and then has gained irreversible understanding of his true nature.

 Jivanmukti can be equated to enlightenment, traditionalists and Westerners seem to be agreed on what this means. Jnana can be equated to awakening although sampradaya traditionalists would expect much higher standards than Westerners before they would call someone awake. Westerners would claim that it is possible to awake even though there is no foundation of shravana and manana. So even though having realized their true nature they may still resort to certain means in order to uncover the occasional habitual error. In traditional Advaita in the the process of nidhdyasana there is no resort to anything anymore, just meditation on ones own nature which has been arrived at through shravana and manana.

 In Dolano and Non-Dolano Western Advaita-groups the awakened one’s recognition has to be an understanding that cannot be lost anymore. For the Dolano-group the understanding of one’s own nature, although fundamentally there, may be veiled by strong identifications temporarily but it cannot disappear anymore. (This temporary veiling will not happen after enlightenment.)

 As the standards for the jivanmukta are so high, none or almost none of the Western teachers would match up with them. Western teachers are by no means sannyasis, those who have renounced all their possessions and relations. Also the jivanmukta, although not bound by the rules of society, will not oppose most of them openly in order to set an example for the seekers on the path. Western Advaita teachers usually have no such considerations.

 Traditional Advaitins will be shocked as to how many (at least hundreds, just check the internet!) Western Advaitins claim to be self-realized – calling it awakening or enlightenment. Maybe some traditionalists are just surprised and curious about what these people have to say, but when looking into it, find that they speak a completely different language that does not seem to even touch the depth of Vedanta.

 Most of the time the shock may well be connected with being appalled by the ignorance, naivety and lack of humility on the part of Westerners, who don’t usually have scriptural knowledge nor behave in a way that would be considered jnani-like (i.e. at the very least dharmic). Western Advaita teachers readily admit to having all kinds of human feelings or thoughts, which as part of the mind are not considered contradictory to awakening/enlightenment. The only requirement that an awake or enlightened being has to fulfill is: he/she needs to have the firm knowledge that those feelings have nothing to do with the Self (this knowledge must not be just scholarly).

 Another difference: no traditional advaitins will ever declare “I am a jnani” or “I am a jivanmukta”. As there are so few people considered to be jnani or jivanmukta they will display such extraordinary features, that they will attract others anyway (in a culture as India that is). On the other hand there are a lot of yogis/swamis/mahatmas/acharyas/sadhus who many Indians would consider jnanis but would never ask them about their jnanihood. Such would not be possible in the West. People will openly ask each other: have you woken up? Are you enlightened? How did it happen and when? How is it now, what is the difference? So the whole question is dealt with much more casually.

 Traditional Advaitins do not seem to bother about it much anyway. As there is no way to find out, for most the issue is no issue. Knowledge of the scriptures is held in highest esteem and if they like and respect a teacher they will follow him/her, self-realized or not. Even in traditional Advaita Vedanta, where it is imperative that the teacher must be established in the vision of the non-duality of the Self, it seems that although the teacher can be deeply cherished he may not be considered to be self-realized.

 In Western Advaita there is no teaching as in traditional Advaita Vedanta (see first blog), so to that extend Western “teachers” are more guides than teachers and they need not be more knowledgeable than their followers. But they definitely need to be (at least) awake because this is what will enable them to see through the misunderstandings of the people they guide. As they do not have scriptural knowledge, they rely on other means to help uncover the layers of ignorance that keep people from waking up themselves.

Summing up:

Western Advaita                                                            Traditional Advaita

In case you need to look up some terms, please refer to http://www.advaita.org.uk/sanskrit/terms_a1.htm