Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00077)

<<<It is not at all silly to say that only ParaBrahman (i.e. Neti, Neti -- not This, not That) is beyond Karma !!! (Look Bhagavad Gita chapter 3, v. 15)>>>

Yes it is silly. But I agree that this whole arguement is based on how we want to define karma. According to HH the Dali Lama, "the theory of karma is very much related with actions that are directly related to living beings, actions that bring feelings of pain and pleasure." And as far as external objects and people are concerned, "as soon as it is contexually related to me it is a mattter of karma." (from GENTLE BRIDGES) In other words, not all actions are karmic, and we can indeed be a human being in a physical body and act without karma - without producing pain or pleasure to ourselves or to others.


<<<So what I am talking about is, that when there is no 'do-er', then there are no ACTIONS>>>

Like I have said before, karma is intimately related to a belief in a personal separate self. 


<<<So the Buddhists are confusing - the Law of Karma, - i.e. not that they does'nt teach properly, but the use of words - distorts the meaning - to more than ONE reader. >>>

Well, I don't find it confusing. Rather, I find exoteric Theosophy confusing, because it is so downright illogical.


<<Let us remember, that the word Karma is 'kri' and has the meaning 'action'.>>>

Don't take things too literally, Morten. Karma is a specific kind of action, one that brings about suffering or pleasure and thus causes future actions that also produce suffering or pleassure, and so on forever. Actions that produce no suffering or pleasure to any living being, are karmaless actions.

The above relates to personal karma. When we consider collective karma, then we can say that it begins with manifestation, with the original bifurcation of non-duality into the duality of Space and Motion. So when Blavatsky says that the law of karma is "universal" she means relative to this manifested solar system.

Jerry S.

--