Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00544)

In a message dated 11/29/98 12:51:37 AM, Dallas wrote:

>Nov 30th 1998
>Partial Dialogue between Dallas and Jerry.
(LHM comments below)
>===============================

>>Dear Jerry and Dan:

>>If KARMA is a law it is a universal one.

>It is so only as the Law of Causality. And this works, we now know,
>relative to an observer.

>DALLAS
>BUT, WHAT IS ITS SOURCE AND ITS COURSE - WHY IS IT THERE, AND
>DOES IT OR DOES IT NOT RULE THE UNIVERSE AS WELL AS MANKIND AND
>THEIR INTERACTION AS UNITS ?
>TO ME KARMA IS THE WHOLE LAW OF INTERACTION AND BROTHERHOOD AND
>NOT LIMITED TO MANKIND ONLY.

>>I am quite familiar with the concept of a Jivan-Mukta ( which in
>>English means : "free of this Life" ).

>In that case, how can you persist in your definition of karma?
>
>Dallas
>Because of the immortal "ray" of the ONE SPRIT - THE
>ABSOLUTENESS - in which all manifested beings bathe, without
>exception - it gives the Atom its life as well as the man and the
>Universe.  No limits.  Karma is therefore also unlimited but very
>real (on any plane from low to high) as "the laws of interaction
>and evolution."

>>I did not invent the definition of Karma, nor did Mme. Blavatsky.
>>It is, she says (and so do the Hindu Pundits) the undeviating law
>>that balances all causes with their effects.  No exceptions.

>This is your interpretation, not mine. From a purely relative
>viewpoint, it often appears as if this were true. However,
>the Good News of Buddhism (the fourth noble truth, I believe)
>is that karma can be eliminated or consumed.  The Jivanmukta
>is him/herself an exception so you are being contradictory here.

>DALLAS
>HARDLY - IF YOU WILL WIDEN YOUR HORIZONS THE LOGIC OUGHT TO BE CLEAR.
>IF YOU CAN ADVANCE YOUR LIMITATIONS, THEN WE CAN UNDERSTAND YOU
>AND WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE THE CONDITIONS YOU LOOK AT.  OBVIOUSLY
>OURS MAY BE DIFFERENT, BUT THEN, THOSE CAN BE ADJUSTED ONCE THAT
>YOURS BECOME CLEAR.

>>Our interpretations are valid so long as they are ours and may
>>please our minds, but the real question, to my mind is:  Are they
>>Universally valid ?  Are we in effect devising our own
>>limitations and exceptions, or are we studying the LAW as it is?

>Human beings are incapable of studying the "LAW as it is"
>whatever that is (?) any more than studying truth as it is.
>It is not a question of just needing more data. Truth is not
>deterministic.  If anything, it has both linear and nonlinear
>components like all living things.

>DALLAS
>I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THIS INVALIDITY OF STUDY, INASMUCH AS THE
>UNIVERSAL SPIRITUAL "RAY" IS AS MUCH PRESENT IN "YOU" AS IT IS IN
>"MYSELF," AND HENCE THE "STUDY" IS AN INWARD LOOKING TO OUR OWN
>PRESENCE AND REASON FOR BEING.  There is no question that if we
>set limits to KARMA then those limits we set prevent us from
>seeing beyond them.  Others like me come along and claim to see
>further.  Is that true or is it to be inquired into, or to be
>rejected -- because not yet in the range of our own seeing ?  I
>do not know.  That is for you to say.
>
>I do observe that (to me) and as a result of our many exchanges,
>I think that my horizon may be somewhat wider.  [I do not know if
>I am better or worse as a result, and comparisons, in any case
>are odious.  But I do know that I value your point of view.] I
>could be quite wrong in all this, but it seems to me that we
>ought to be able to look further than the exoteric teachings
>handed down to us by one of the schools of Buddhism.  There were
>others, as well as an esoteric one, I am given to understand,
>which the Buddha used in connection with the instruction of his
>close and deeply inquiring disciples.  Perhaps Theosophy - which
>has opened so many doors that explain the myths and mysteries of
>ancient writings and thought is in line with this esoteric
>Buddhistic school.

>>I think we may always disagree on interpretations so long as they
>>are personal.  However the resolution becomes common when and if
>>we can perceive a universally similar definition.

>So far we haven't seen very many of these, have we? BTW,
>all interpretations are personal and subject to disagreement
>just like all observations (experiences) are. When we collectively
>agree on something, we call it a law. But this only lasts until
>an Einstein comes along and shows everyone how wrong they were.

>DALLAS
>AN EXCELLENT ANALOGY - NOW LETS GO FIND AN EINSTEIN in the area
>of WISDOM TO HELP US IN THIS.

What is an "Einstein in the area of wisdom"?  Does this imply a genius?
Einstein was a genius only in accordance with his own definition; "Genius is
concentration for a long period of time on a single idea".  Therefore, what
you are asking for is not possible in the "area of wisdom". . . Since wisdom
can be obtained in a single flash of transcendental (intuitive) insight.
Knowledge on the other hand, gained through long study and practice is what's
really needed to clarify the nature of karma--as it was presented in the
esoteric teaching of HPB--as: "The intuitive student will understand. . ."

However, all we (me and my "Shadow Master";-) can see from where we sit, is
that you both are wrong--arguing over the meaning and operation of Karma as if
it were a law.  The law under which Karma (meaning, "action-reaction")
operates, like reincarnation (death-rebirth), is the Second Fundamental
Proposition (or "principle")--that of "Universal (absolute) Law".  And that
"Law" is represented by the (manifest) laws of "cycles and periodicity" on
every plane or field of being.  (All, based on fundamental spin beginning with
the Absolute itself.)

In accord with these laws---since, the word "karma" (as we use it) only refers
to the actions of sentient beings--any such karmic action will always have a
reaction that reflects back to the being that caused it (and this, only
because the being has make a "conscious" choice).

On the planes of the material, astral or rational mind, that "chooser" would
normally be considered the lower ego (or personal nature).   What that
"reaction" will be, however, cannot be determined--since it may have
originated on one or the other levels and, thus, reflects back to that level
(because its vibratory patterns originated on it?).  Therefore, because we
cannot know all the laws of periodicity and cycles and the resonances between
them, as they apply on each individual plane, field or level of
consciousness--the ways of karma are extremely complex.  The closest we can
come to understanding them, from an esoteric viewpoint, are the *Aphorisms on
karma* by WQJ--based on the teachings he received directly from HPB and others
Even so, these are simple conclusions or advice--and not technical
explanations. Also, no mention is made of "transcendence" of karma due to
"enlightenment".  As far as we know, such teachings of Buddhism are not based
on anything taught by the Buddha, and are purely exoteric teachings for the
ordinary uninitiated followers.

Since karma is simply the effect of causes initiated by sentient beings, and
particularly, such beings with sufficient mind power to make either harmful
(disharmonious) or harmless (harmonious) choices--the concept of transcendence
of karma could mean that when one becomes enlightened and awakens to the
consciousness of the universal spirit (experiencing "isolation"--as Patanjali
puts it) such an awakened "being", his consciousness linked to the Universal
Awareness, cannot thenceforth be affected by any karma caused on the physical,
astral or mental plane by a choice of the former lower personality.  This, of
course, would apply only to the conscious entity on the highest plane itself,
and not the mental-physical being that remains behind.

Generally, it is taught that In the case of an avowed bodhisattva or other
jivanmukta who sincerely repents his previous bad choices; When such a one
becomes enlightened, and in so doing, must re experience and makes sincere
atonement for his/her past deeds of karma--he/she voluntary accepts all the
pain and suffering that such karma has caused, feels the physical discomfort
and mental anguish for his bad or thoughtless or otherwise harmful deeds, and
determines the restitution that must be made.  Thereby, he(she) may, by such
penance, neutralize the effects that--had he not done so--would have accrued
to his lower nature sometime later in this life, or in some future
incarnation.  As the Masters said (as reported by WQJ), "karma is an
undeviating and unerring tendency in the Universe to restore equilibrium, and
it operates incessantly."

Thus, prior to enlightenment, the prospective bodhisattva meets the "dweller
on the threshold (in reality the mind created monster, figuratively
representing all the accumulated past evil deeds, and by an act of pure
contrition and surrender, courageously faces his self-created evil deeds,
accepts punishment (actually learns the lesson), defeats the self created
monster, neutralizes HIS/HER karma--and, thereby, "transcends" all future
karmic effects.  Since the "enlightened one", at that point, supposedly, can
no longer make any future bad karma (Except by a harmful choice as the lesser
of two evils, perhaps, or by accident--for which he is immediately Self
forgiven since he already has transferred his consciousness into the spiritual
field or "plane")--and, as a bodhisattva, he(she) must make restitution for
any harm he was responsible for causing to other sentient beings by vowing to
forego nirvanic escape, and "eternally" help ALL suffering beings to attain
enlightenment.  (But, then, in this case, we can look at such an action as;
really "experiencing" the karma, after all.  So, "transcendence", as used
exoterically, may be just that. . .  Stepping onto another plane where that
karma cannot effect the Bodhisattva's new found conscious Self (of all).

My take is that this sort of exoteric teaching serves the same purpose
(although somewhat more logically and effectively) as the Christian's almost
similar cop out of "vicarious atonement".  (At least, the Buddhists, don't
deny karma and reincarnation, as the Christians do.)  In any event, the
fundamental Law and their derivative laws cannot be circumvented. . .  And,
karma, when considered as the expression of action-reaction operating within
these laws, must be fulfilled (although there may not be a being on the former
plane of action to feel its effects, should such a being accept nirvana and
refuse to incarnate.  Although, as HPB points out, that nirvanic period will
eventually end, and that "being" will be forced to face all its previous
karma, one way or the orther.)

Any such act of restitution, however, designed to relieve the disharmony
caused by the initial act,  can, if properly applied, restore the disturbed
field of action to its original harmony.  Thus, it may be a "transcendence",
so to speak, for the lower Ego, but it still is an expression and resolution
of karma for the higher, enlightened awareness.   For a Jivanmukti, however,
who as a "Pratyika Buddha" intends to go to nirvana after death, there is no
transcendence of karma until then, unless he makes restitution in this life
the same way as the Bodhisattva.  But, then, that's experiencing the karma,
too.  So, what is transcendence in the exoteric Buddhist sense?  Another
intentional priest-crafty "blind", perhaps?  Or, should we ask that question
of the Buddha himself?

But, then again, there are selfish and inherently evil "Masters of Karma" who
have reached "enlightenment", have not taken any Bodhisattva vows, refuse to
become nirvanees, have the wisdom of a Buddha, and who know the workings of
cyclic law so thoroughly that they can deflect or reflect karmic effects
without any immediate harm to themselves, physically or mentally, that is,
(Except, as HPB pointed out, they eventually have to pay--if they keep that up
through a number of lifetimes--by ending up after this or a later death, in
Avitchi (a hell realm of the astral) where they will experience ALL their past
accumulated bad karma.  (Could this be what the Christians in their contrived
and distorted theology speak of as "Hell", and what some Buddhists speak of as
the ending place of Hungry Ghosts"?)  So, again, where and what is
transcendence?  Based on the (possibly false) idea that karma may returns
solely on the plane it was initiated on, and, therefore, may be escaped on the
conscious level only by "jumping ship", so to speak--is "transcending karma"
just another "cop out" of exoteric Buddhism?

Thank you for the opportunity for attempting to explain karma as the
expression of the immutable law of cyles and periodicity that it really is. .
. And (hopefully) ending this incessent, and sometimes opinionated, babble
about it being mutable (which it isn't).

LHM