{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029612756264236904, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00878620240807029, 'mean_word_length': 4.364746945898778, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Karma: An Anthropological Inquiry . Edited by Charles F. Keyes and E. Valentine Daniel. University of California Press: Berkeley, 1983. Pp. ix, 313. £23.50.

This volume is linked by common origins to Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, edited by Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty, which was reviewed in an earlier number of this Journal (Vol. 17. 4 (1983), pp. 698-700). Whereas that volume aimed at assembling studies of accounts of karma and rebirth in classical literature, this volume deals with karma and rebirth as found in contemporary traditions in South and South-East Asia. The papers it contains show that there is a general theory in the area that 'we are what we have done, and we shall be what we do now', but there are other influences at work too, e.g. the transfer of merit from one individual to another, so that another's deeds may play a part in a person's rebirth, and also the capricious hostility of evil spirits, who may cause undeserved suffering. Against the theory of reward and punishment there is the determinist idea of an unchangeable fate, which may be written on one's forehead at birth. There is also a mixture of the two, whereby the writing is changed at each rebirth in accordance with accrued karma. Despite the clear distinction to be made between karma and fate, it is clear from a number of papers that in many traditions there is a confusion between, or blending of, the two. Several papers are devoted to a study of the various means of discerning one's fate, by flower rituals, astrology, etc., and of altering it. One paper mentions a debate in a Tamil village about a thief, some persons putting forward, as a defence for his action, the belief that it was his fate to be a thief, and he should consequently not be punished for what he could not avoid doing. The fact that such a debate was possible would seem to indicate that among Hindus there is no firm agreement about the working of karma, whereas the classical Buddhist view on the matter would seem to be quite clear. There are many accounts in Buddhist literature of people who, suffering because of earlier karma, do something which may lead to an improved situation in this world or the next. The essence of Buddhism is free will—the chance to choose to do good or evil—and the Buddha emphasized the importance of will in relation to action: there is no evil karma if there is no evil intention. Other papers in this volume show that some Hindus do accept the concept of freedom of action, and believe that a period of sustained good action, e.g. the practice of vows (vrats) found in parts of North India, or the offering oipuja to the gods, will counteract bad deeds. How did the confusion between karma and fate arise? The theory of samsdra, an endless cycle of rebirths, which is a necessary concomitant to the idea of karma, is a comparatively late addition to Hinduism, where it seems to have arisen c. 600 B.C. It is clear that in certain respects the idea was never fully assimilated at all levels of society, particularly outside North India and among