Question by ssrvj: Does some concepts of “Exixtentialism” resemble the “Doctrine of Karma”?
Mr.Soren Kierkegaard and Mr.Freidrich Neietsche are credited with the postulation of “Existentialism”- in 19 and 20 th Century
-two concepts say:-“the person is For example, someone who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel person. Furthermore, by this action of cruelty such persons are themselves responsible for their new identity (a cruel person). This is as opposed to their genes, or ‘human nature’, bearing the blame.
As Sartre puts it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: “man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards.” Of course, the more positive, therapeutic aspect of this is also implied: A person can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person. Here it is also clear that since man can choose to be either cruel or good, he is, in fact, neither of these things essentially. 
(1) defined only in so far as he or she acts (Karma)and (2) that he or she is responsible for his or her actions(Angulimaala story). This is what is very precisely said in “Karma Kaandam”(Doctrine of Karma)
what are your “inputs”
Reference :-“Existentialism in Wikipedia
The explanatory note should read like this (taken from Wikipedia):-“(1) defined only in so far as he or she acts and (2) that he or she is responsible for his or her actions”
the words in parentheses( ) are mine(ssrvj)
(quote) “This is as opposed to their genes, or ‘human nature’, bearing the blame”(en-quote)
this is also explained in the Upanishads
“Na Jaathi Karanam”=Genes are not responsible
“Guna Karma Vipaakaha”=the attributes of action (“Cruel”–“Samaritan” etc) is reponsible.
The same concept is further strengthened by Atharva Vedha;-“Na Aham Kartha–Kaamah Kartha–Na ham ka Rahitha–Kaamah Ka Rahitha”
so when i read “Modern” “existentialism,i get a doubt,whether I read “Existentialism ” or Hindu Scriptures.!!!!.
Allegory:-(quote) “Karma (Law) is not merciful”—Yes–it is NOT merciful–but Karma is “inevitable”–Meemaamsikas hold that Karma “binds” even God also–their argument is “a Law maker” can NOT break”Law”–lest it would result in nephotism,favouritism and “Chaos” will result.It is why when Lord -God-sri.Krishna asks sri.Sahadeva “Can you bind Me?”–sri.Sahadeva says “yes.I can bind You with the Law of Karma.”
Swamy Ji–my boss arenouned Physician used to say people always remember only about 10 Air-crashes in 10 years that 1,000,000 successful flights–the moment one say Karma people think only the Negative aspects–if there are 1,000,000 Sat Karmis there are only 10 Dush Karmis.Micro Soft Mr.Bill gates has said all his earnings will go only “Charities” and NOT for his children–if one says Charities in English,in Sanskrit one has to “Sat Karma” only–Bil does NOT do it with expectations-but he does a “Nish Kaama Karma” only—Fatalism is inertia,indifference,lethargy,”Darkness:(Tamas)–Karma is Rajas,Tamas(Dush Karma) and more often than not Saatvic(Sat Karma)–so Fatalism and Karma are Not “same”
Answer by Steve H
I think the doctrine of karma extends further and says that your actions not only affect the way you are perceived or exist (i.e. you define yourself as cruel by being cruel) but also that there exists some kind of retribution for it, be it in the next life or simply that people shun you for being cruel.
Existentialism doesn’t really say anything about the repercussions of the way you define yourself.
Add your own answer in the comments!