Theos-Talk Archives (October 2001 Message tt00214)

Dear Mauri:

Please reviews the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (HPB) and what it teaches
about Karma.

It is innate to all beings in Nature. It is not an "outside
agent" or an "outside agency." It has been described as "an
emanation of beings."

Any action involves a choice of some kind. Choice generates
Karma as a result of the decision made. That Karma is then
"attached: to the being that generated it.

It would be good to find out what that means.

Dal

=====================

-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri [mailto:mhart@idirect.ca]
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 8:47 PM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] karma/duality/interpretation


DALLAS wrote: <<<KARMA is the universal and
impersonal law of compensation. It pervades Nature. It is
Vibration in many ways and places, as I understand it. It
resolves disturbance by reaction physically, metaphysically,
and on the plane of ethics and morals in human relations -- we
would call it the balance between virtue and vice. As I se it
while it tends to harmonize disturbance, it also encourages
cooperation, generosity, universality and tenderness for
others.. If is a force that ever gently pushes the human Ego
onward to perfection of its Universal qualities, while
minimizing and eroding selfishness. In LIGHT ON THE
PATH at the end of the book is a very fine exposition of
Karma and how it works. I found it very useful.>>>>>>>>
============

I wonder if there's a general tendency, (even among many
Theosophists?), to interpret "Karmic" "action and reaction"
AS IF they were an "outside effect" of some kind, AS IF
karmic effects were, like the weather, an "outer effect" that
we "ought to be mindful of" . . . or should we consider that
possibly we ourselves are not only the agents of our own
karmic "selves and situations," but might be so intimately
involved with our dualistic karma-selves that, in effect, we
ARE our karma and our karma is us, at least in dualistic terms
(in effect suggesting that all of us have an additional surname
of "Karma"?)?:

That is, "karmically speaking," while we generally tend to
think in terms of being "ourselves," I wonder if that "myself"
might really be a "karmic" effect-manifestation that "in turn"
has been "interpreted" by "me" in "a certain way" . . . and
were "I" to break through the "maya" of "my interpretation" of
"myself" and "my karma," "I" might get a glimpse of an aspect
of a less-dual world view . . . ? (Sorry about all those
"quotes"! I'd would have liked to use more of them, but, well
. . . )

In other words, thinking/writing about karma as if it were
separate from ourselves, (as if it were, in conventional terms,
like assessing something about the weather or some
less-intimate or "scientific" aspect in our lives), might be
somewhat less productive in theosophic Path-related terms?:

If one were to attempt to define and research the
action/reaction of karma by way of "scientific analysis," say,
would not the karmic effect of the researcher
continually/potentially effect/alter the results, introducing
various "uncertainties" or "fudge factors" into such
karmic/dualistically-based research, since the researcher and
the subject of the research would really be . . . one's own
dualistic/interpetive "karmic situation" (or, "egotistically
speaking": "Karmic Situation," say?), after all, since that
"situation" would, in effect, "refuse to stay still" long enough
for "proper scientific assessment"? ((Did you get that,
Dallas?: Now I'm calling people "situations"---to add insult to
injury!!! How "low" can I get, eh?!))

Isn't that the kind of problem that some scientists have when
studying "atomic particles," in that, at a certain level of
"reality," one finds "complicating" "inter-reactions" between
the "observer and the observed"?

Speculatively,
Mauri