Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00179)

Hi Terrie,

The thing that got me thinking about karma when I first heard about 
it (in this lifetime :-) was the concept of self-responsibility. It's 
so difficult for a western mind, steeped in materialism, to accept 
the vastness of a law that affects everything in the universe. How 
can we prove it? I don't suppose we will be able to do that for a 
long time, being still sort of randy teenagers in terms of evolution. 
(Not that I want to dis teenagers, having raised a bunch of 
delightful ones myself, if I do say so)

But the idea that I, not someone else, not random chaos, not the 
government, not my parents, not anything but I, am responsible for 
everything that happens to me, appealed to my better nature to the 
extent that I have spent some years investigating how this could be 
true. And I have to say that at this point it is the only thing that 
makes any sense to me. Either I am a pawn in a game which has no 
rules, or I am an integral part of a system which is ruled by perfect 
justice, perfect compassion. Either I cannot ever understand any of 
the whats and whys, or I am capable of attaining to greater and 
greater consciousness by accepting responsibility for myself and my 
thoughts, words, and actions. Either I am an isolated lonely 
meaningless cypher on the scroll of a cruel uncaring universe, or I 
am an important speck in the vast scheme of things, without which the 
scheme would be forever altered. What's to choose? 

Love and Light,
Adelasie

On 8 Mar 2002 at 7:43, Terrie Halprin wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Just a note, if I might:
> 
> > <<<All such claims are open to the criticism that,
> > if they are interpreted in a straightforward way,
> > they are simply absurd and, if they are interpreted
> > in such a way as to avoid absurdity, they say 
> > absolutely nothing. If it is maintained that the
> > lawful behavior of molecules, mountains, or planets
> > are instances of rewards and punishments, 
> 
> I might suggest that similar processing unto differing
> lights/lights and depths/densities probably translates
> into being a somewhat personal refining, having/being
> individuated for addressing that layer/existence
> specifically. In that respect, a "living" process or
> "process" of existence is beautifully expressed and
> united, amongst a sea of individualities -so- over-all
> context(s) is, in fact, probably a good thing to be
> understanding more/more thoroughly. 
> 
> (All - "Bad/bad rock! You smushed me plant - you've
> been a very/very naughty boy. Now, I think I'll just
> throw you over here!" - jokes aside.)
> 
> this is
> > plainly absurd, since molecules, planets, 
> > and mountains cannot perform good or evil deeds. If,
> > to avoid this absurdity, "Karma" is taken in a
> > broader sense in which it is simply a synonym for
> > "lawfulness" or "regularity," then calling the
> > various laws of nature instances of Karma is saying
> > nothing at all. It is plain that we do not
> > understand the regularities of the world any 
> > better and nothing whatever has been added to the
> > content of any known law. Calling natural
> > regularities instances of Karma is about 
> > as enlightening as describing them as manifestations
> > of the Absolute Mind or as instances of the
> > dialectical interplay of Being and Non-
> > Being.>>>>
> 
> 
> > 
> > Agreed. HH the Dali Lama says that karma should
> > refer to acts of good or evil that carry human moral
> > value to them, not to causality itself. I wish that
> > Theosophists would be more honest with themselves.
> 
> I hear ya, interesting thought, especially if the Dali
> Lama says so, of course, but, perhaps, still it is
> possible (and useful) to consider (and, keep in
> context) an awareness of karma that is truly long,
> wide and multi-layered. 
> 
> The science and the philosophy of this, a sacred
> process, interests me. 
> 
> Have a BEAUTIFUL Day,
> 
> Terrie