Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00413)

Hi All.

> Jerry Schueler wrote:
>
> Many Theosophists seem to take the easy and simple
> approach to karma, that it is cause and effect or
> a system of rewards and punishments. [ .... ]
> This, IMHO, is
> nothing more than changing the word god to the word
> karma. I don't believe that karma works that way at all.

An interesting point and one that should be of interest to any genuine
student of the Wisdom Tradition.

We as students need to be mindful that we do not make conclusive
statements, especially about such subjects as Karma which we really know
little about or can know little about while we are so heavily involved
in it.  At the most we can give our current opinion with a disclaimer
that this is all that it is.

Over the last year I have been studying Patanjali's Yoga Sutras with
some fellow students which has also lead me into studying also the
Samkhya philosophy from which Pantanjali's Yoga Sutras are based on.
Both are most valuable Vedas for any serious student.

These works do discuss Karma and in fact many of the commentaries of
these Sutras by the ancient Sages explain quite clearly how Karma is
created and how it is worked out during different incarnation.  To
understand this the student needs to understand what Samakaras are and
how they are created.  In brief they are impressions which we leave
behind in our subconscious by our daily experiences, be the conscious or
unconscious, internal or external, desirable or undesirable. The term
Samskara suggests that these imprints are not merely passive vestiges of
a person's psychic life.  They constantly propel consciousness into
action.

Now when the soul goes through the process of rebirth into a new body it
looks at these Samskaras which are latent within our consciousness from
past incarnations and then chooses a new incarnation which such
conditions, parents, culture, associations etc. where the soul is able
to work through a group of these Samsakaras.  This is what the Yoga
Sutras (from my current understanding) call Karma.  In each life we have
a definite set of Samaskaras we choose to work with but not all those
Samakaras which are latent within out subconscious.

I also looked up the word Karma in the Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Yoga
by George Feuerstein, which takes much of the meaning from the Yoga
Sutras.  This is the interpretation given to Karma which you might find
interesting:

Begin Quote:

Karma or Karman ("action").  This word denotes action in general.  The
Bhagavad-Gita (XVIII.23ff) distinguishes three fundamental types of
acts, depending on the actor's inner disposition: (1) Sattvika-karman,
which stands for actions that are prescribed by tradition, performed
without attachment by a person who does not hanker after the "fruit".
(2) Ragasa-Karman, which is performed out of ego-sense (ahamkara) and in
order to experience pleasure; (3) tamasa-karman, which is performed by a
deluded, or confused, individual who has no concern for the moral and
spiritual consequences of his or her deeds.

A further meaning of Karman is "ritual act." But more specifically,
karman (or Karma) refers to the moral forces of one's intentions,
thoughts, and behaviour.  In this sense, karma often corresponds to
fate, as determined by the quality of one's being in past lives and the
present life.  The underlying idea is that even the  moral dimension of
existence is causally determined.  As the Shiva-Samhita (II.39), a late
hatha-yoga scripture puts it" "Whatever is experience in the world - all
that is springs from karma.  All creatures have experiences in
accordance with [their] karma."

The Gheranda-Samhita (I.6f), a popular manual on hatha-yoga, has these
two stanzas:

  Through good and bad deeds the "pot" (ghata) [i.e., the body] of the
living
  being is produced; from the body, karma arises.  Thus [the circle]
revolves
  like a waterwheel (ghati-yantra).

  As the waterwheel moves up and down powered by the bullocks, so the
psyche
  (jiva) passes [repeatedly] through life and death, powered by karma.

The doctrine of karma is intimately connected with the idea of rebirth.
Both teachings first surfaced in India, as far as we can tell, during
the age of the earliest Upanishads.

Generally, karma is thought to be of three kinds: (1) Sancita-karma, or
the totally accumulated stock of karmic deposits awaiting fruition. (2)
prarabdha-karma, which has come to fruition in this life (e.g., the
bodies constitution); (3) vartamana- or agami-karma, which is karma
acquired during the present lifetime and which will bear fruit in the
future.  The Yoga-Sutra (III.22) distinguishes between moral retribution
that is "acute" and "deferred".  Vyasa, in his Yoga Bhashya (III.22)
imaginatively likens the former type to a wet cloth that is spread out
to dry quickly, and the latter type to wet cloth rolled into a ball,
which only dries very slowly.

All karma, whether "good" or "bad" is considered to be binding.  Karma
is the mechanism by which conditional existence maintains itself.
Notwithstanding the sweeping influence of karma, the philosophers and
sages, with few exceptions, have not succumbed to fatalism. On the
contrary, their thinking has revolved around the question of how this
nexus of moral causation can be escaped.  All spirtiual paths start from
assumption that the law of moral retribution, which is comparable to
what modern physics calls a natural law, can be transcended.  Thus in
his Yoga-Sutra (IV.7) Patanjali states that karma is fourfold, which is
explained in the Yoga-Bhashya as follows:  Karma can be "black," "black
and white," "white," and "neither white nor black."

In order to outwit the iron law of karma, one has to transcend the very
consciousness that generates mental and physical actions and their
consequences.  In other words, one must go beyond the ego-personality,
the illusion that one is an agent (kartri).  This philosophy is
beautifully epitomized in the teaching of karma-yoga in the
Bhagavad-Gita.  Realizing that life is synonymous with activity, the
God-man Krishna taught that mere abstention from action does not lead to
liberation or enlightenment.  Hence he recommended the path of "action
transcendence".  Only acts done without postulating a subjective center
- the ego - are non binding.  By constantly cultivating a
self-transcending disposition, the vicious circle of karmic existence
can be intercepted.  Thus, future karma is prevented, whereas past karma
is simply allowed to play itself out as it will.  Spiritual practice is
thought to be capable of diffusing otherwise severe physical karma.  For
instance, karma that would ordinarily cause a car accident may be
neutralized in a dream experience of that predestined accident and so
on.

End Quote.

I found the above example and explanation very good in light of how I
currently perceive Karma.  Two other explanations worth mentioning are
that of HPB in the Theosophical Glossary. Her she puts for largely a
Buddhist view of Karma.  The other reference is that in "LIght on the
Path" written down by MC.  The last chapter is on on Karma which is
explained in a completely different way that the above.

The Light on the Path, The Key to Theosophy and Patanjali's Sutra make
it very clear that our current understanding and perceptions in limited
by our present Karma, therefore we find ourselves with bodies, mind,
emotions and life circumstances which are limited by our past and which
also make it almost impossible to really understand these great
principles under which we work.  It is also out Samskaras and Karma
which allow us to opportunity to study these great subjects we are now
discussing in these forums.  Wither we also have the same opportunity in
the next next life depends largely on what we in this life do with the
positive samakaras we have built up.

Cheers
John