Karma v Tabula rasa KGXE

Got it — you’re asking about the comparison between Tabula Rasa and Karma. Let me break it down clearly:

1. 

Tabula Rasa (Blank Slate Theory)

• Origin: Western philosophy, especially John Locke (17th century).
• Core Idea:
  
• Humans are born with no innate ideas, like a blank slate.
• Identity, knowledge, and personality are shaped by experience, learning, and environment.
• Implication:
  
• Anyone can potentially become anything, depending on upbringing and education.
• Strongly emphasizes nurture over nature.

2. 

Karma

• Origin: Indian philosophy (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism).
• Core Idea:
  
• Every action (physical, mental, or verbal) leaves an imprint that influences the present and future.
• One’s current life circumstances are partly the result of past deeds (including from previous births).
• Implication:
  
• People are not born as blank slates; they carry samskaras (latent impressions) shaped by karma.
• Life is not just shaped by environment but also by previous actions and moral causality.

3. 

Key Contrast

Aspect	Tabula Rasa	Karma
At Birth	Mind is blank, no prior influence	Mind carries karmic imprints from past
Determinants of Life	Environment, education, sensory experiences	Past actions (karma) + current choices
Responsibility	Shaped externally	Shaped by self’s own deeds (law of cause & effect)
Philosophical View	Empiricism, materialist	Spiritual, moral causality

4. 

Possible Synthesis

Some modern thinkers suggest a middle ground:

• We are born with karmic tendencies (not a perfect blank slate),
• but our environment, education, and choices further shape how those tendencies unfold.

So, karma provides the “ink” and life experience writes the “script” on our “slate.”

👉 Do you want me to also explore how psychology today (like genetics + environment) relates to these two ideas? That could bridge ancient philosophy with modern science.