When we criticize someone for doing bad things, is their karma transferred to us?

Is it that when we criticize someone, their bad karma gets transferred to us, and if we exaggerate while criticizing, then our good karma gets transferred to them? Answer, karma is a very complicated concept, as Krishna explains, gahana karma nogati. At one level, the essential implication is very logical and essential, that we are responsible for our actions, and we will be held accountable for them. However, once we get into the specifics, things become quite complicated, and while there are some specifics mentioned in scripture, for example, somebody who eats meat will get XYZ punishment, or somebody who does a particular wrong activity will get a particular suffering.

It doesn’t mention over there, how many, about specifics again within that, is it that somebody who eats meat once will get the same destination as somebody who has been eating meat every meal of their life, throughout their life? The karma is logical, it’s not diabolical, such a, any system, ultimately the system of justice, any system of justice which punishes a one-time crime at the same degree as a one-time criminal as a habitual criminal would be considered a problematic justice system. So, in general, the specifics, they are a possibility, but they are not a necessity, that’s the broad understanding that can be inferred. Their patterns and sometimes the principles of accountability work in very visually graphic ways, sometimes they don’t work in that way.

So therefore, trying to attribute a specific, either a specific result to a specific past karma or warning that a specific action will lead to a specific result in the future, that’s a hazardous business, even if we can find an explicit quote in scripture for that. Because law is complicated and justice, if it is to be furthered, it has to be done in a way that the law has to be applied carefully and that’s why we have, we don’t just have the law of karma as an impersonal law, we also have a personal deity, Yamraj, who gets involved and there is a certain amount of individual discretion over there. Now, of course, we can go further and say that there are instances where even Yamraj makes a mistake.

So those are told to illustrate particular points within the broader context. I wouldn’t consider those as habitual errors. Now, having given this background, any specific correlation, if it is mentioned, I would say causation is out of question, but correlation, causation means A leads to B and correlation is A goes together with B, may be caused or they may be concurrent, they occur at the same time for different causes, we don’t know.

Whenever any kind of connection between some action and some results are talked about, I feel it’s best to stick to the principle and when a speaker is communicating, there also is an underlying principle. So, for example, don’t become habitually negative in our speech by looking at all the bad that is being done by people and fixating on the apparent iniquity of the world. So that principle is more important, but does that literally mean that when a particular bad action is, if we point out to the bad actions of others, then their bad karma comes to us.

For instance, the Kauravas do horrendous things and the Pandavas point that out. So are the Pandavas getting the Kauravas’ karma? If we take this logic, literally, how would any system of justice ever work? If a person who bears testimony in a court to a crime, where a murderer, that person has seen a murder happening, and the person bears testimony over there, and that person just by becoming a witness over there, gets the karma of the murderer, especially what kind of system of justice would that be? So sometimes certain statements, the spirit of those statements needs to be taken and the spirit is that, okay, as I said, there is much that is unfair in the world and to accept it, we need to come to peace with it and we need to stop fixating on it. So some people are habitually gossipy, habitually cynical, now that’s bad.

But the line between when is it gossipy, when is it gossip, and when is it not, is very difficult to precisely figure out. And that’s why somebody might be expressing a grievance or a complaint and somebody else might label it as a gossip. Now in the Bhagavatam, there is a statement which again could be used to support this idea that when Dharma is being beaten by Kali, Parikshit stops Kali and then he asked Dharma, the bull, what is the cause of your suffering? And then Dharma replies, it’s very difficult to know because different philosophers have proposed different things.

And then Dharma replies, Krishna replies, bravo, he says that you are surely, it’s a wise answer that you are Dharma. And those who point to a wrongdoer get the same destination as the wrongdoer. Now what does that mean? If that were to mean literally the same thing, then why does Parikshit Maharaj even intervene over there to stop Kali? So, it means more in a philosophical sense that if you don’t see the bigger picture, then we will stay in the same ignorance with as the ignorance with which the wrongdoer is doing the wrong.

Parikshit Maharaj punishes Kali also. So in a devotional setting, we may not want to highlight the wrongdoings of devotees in public forums. So, it could be applied at two levels, the particular statement in spirit, but that don’t be habitually negative and don’t voice grievances or don’t speak negative about devotees in public forums.

Having said this, reality is complex and I would be very careful to not make statements categorically about karma and to not make, especially not use those statements to insist on a particular specific action in a specific situation. Some devotees take up a lifelong cause of say correcting particular wrongs, maybe some financial misappropriation, maybe some child abuse and that becomes their mission. So, they will be regularly looking for faults.

So would this imply that, say, the Child Protection Office in our moment, it points out the faults of those who have committed such thing and then publicizes that. So, is it those who are in the CPO, are all of them giving their good karma to the predators who have actually violated children and as the CPO, such child abusers, karma coming to the CPO officers. So, to summarize, karma is a principle of accountability and responsibility.

That’s why we need to become careful and contemplative about what we do. Beyond that, specifics, even when they are given in scripture, the specifics are given without further nuancing of context and that’s why even though specifics may not apply universally and beyond that, certain logical aspects or certain ways of coordinating karma that might seem logical in some way, I think they need to be taken more in the principle of what can be learned for healthy human behavior. But beyond that, I would not mention them as absolute principles.