KARMA - A NEW LOOK
By Gerald. J. Schueler, Ph.D.
These are a collection of short articles that I wrote on the subject of karma. They were originally
written for theosophical readers. I have edited them a little,
and hopefully they will provide some insights and food for
thought for New Agers as well.
1. ESOTERIC KARMA.
I respectfully request that each and every one of us today
take a new look at karma. The current perception is of an
eternal Wheel of cause and effect. Every act that we do, every
thought that we think, every emotion that we feel, is said to
produce its effect which in turn is the cause of the next act, or
thought or emotion. "As you sow, so shall you reap" and so on.
This Wheel is presumably eternal, although some have suggested
that it may somehow slowly be alleviated in future lives. Any
serious thought on the subject, as I have defined it here, will
surely result in a realization of its endless nature. Cause and
effect work through time, and so long as we have a concept of
time, we will have karma to 'work out.' My point is this - there
is no way to ever 'work out' karma if we define it in this
manner. We will be working out karma for the next 38 million
lifetimes and beyond.
I submit for consideration, that karma is not the hard-nosed
eye-for-an-eye doctrine that many would have us believe. I see
the Eternal Wheel of cause and effect, or rewards and
punishments, as a very exoteric view, and I have always been
rather amazed at how theosophists and New Agers have adopted it
as truth. How can every single act or thought produce a
corresponding effect? Is there a god somewhere who sets up the
rules of good and evil, right and wrong? Perhaps our planetary
deity? If so, then can what is 'right' on Earth be 'wrong' on
Mars? Are the 'recorders' jotting down every act into an 'astral
record' book? And if so, who reads this book to make judgments
on what is written there? Most religions say that this is so,
but why? Is refusing to go to church always productive of bad
karma? Does suicide always produce bad karma? Does euthanasia?
Does abortion? Does eating meat? Is good and evil always black
and white, or are there some gray areas?
Suppose two people share an intimate relationship. They
break up shortly afterward, and the man leaves. The woman has a
baby that the father has no knowledge of at all. Does the father
suffer bad karma unconsciously (it would be, I suppose, written
in the akashic records!). The father may look back on the
incident with a great deal of love and pleasure - as a nice
experience. The mother may look back on the same incident but
from her point of view it was an unpleasant and painful incident.
The fact is, we quite often have experiences where different
views are obtained from the participants, some thinking the act
was good, and others bad. How does karma come into play in such
events? In other words, is every act that we do good or bad
irrespective of how we think of it, or does how we view our
actions come into play?
I submit that there is an esoteric way to view karma.
Certain incidents in the past will effect our present, and our
future, but each karmic act itself could just as well be
psychological as physical. If we think we have done wrong, that
will effect us just as surely as if we had. This view, of
course, has repercussions with the idea of the conscience. I
submit that the 'akashic record' is within ourselves, and not
external in some Great Hall or external subplane for all to see,
like going to the beach or to the mountains.
2. KARMA AND MEMORY.
One of the foundation-teachings of modern theosophy is the
doctrine of karma. All of the founders of the Theosophical
Society wrote about karma, and indeed, this Sanskrit word is now
widely accepted in English as the name of the law of cause and
effect. Modern theosophical teachers have written and discussed
the ins and outs of karma at great length. According to the
teachings, the present is the product of the past because every
current event is an effect of past events and, at the same time,
is a cause for future events. However, as noted by Rohit Mehta
in an article entitled Theosophy Unexplained (from THE
THEOSOPHIST), theosophists have largely ignored the aspect of
memory in dealing with karma because "the past is all the time
present in the form of memory." What do we mean by "the past?"
A look at any court proceeding or incident investigation will
dramatically demonstrate that we each see events in different
ways. Two people undergoing an event together will seldom recall
the event exactly the same way. As time goes by, the differences
in recall are even more remote as details become "fuzzy." One
question that we need to answer, is "Are past events fixed and
unchangeable, and simply remembered differently by different
people, or are past events our memory of them, and thus the past
is changeable?" It is just possible that the idea of a past
consisting of a continuous series of fixed events that "really"
happened, irregardless of individual viewpoint, is the exoteric
view. Furthermore, it is conceivable that the idea of the past
being our current memory of it (or our current interpretation of
it based on limited "evidence") would be the esoteric view.
According to occultism, every thought and deed of every person on
Earth is recorded forever in the Earth's Astral Light or Akashic
Records. The teaching is that anyone can "read" these records in
order to learn exactly what happened at any point in our history.
However, the truth is that virtually every psychic who reads
these astral records, reports slightly different findings. We
each see the astral records differently, just as we each have
unique memories of past events. Furthermore, the illusive nature
of reading astral records is well documented in theosophical
literature. This being so, whether our past is fixed or not, we
can conveniently think of it as being changeable with our memory
of it. There are some who think that our "real" past thoughts
and deeds will confront us immediately after death in a panoramic
view of our past life. There are some who think that this
panoramic view is nothing more than a review of our memory of our
past. Which view one takes is important, because it is said that
our future life will be the karmic outcome of this life. Will
the cause of your next life be what you "really" thought, said,
and did, in this life, or what you remember thinking, saying, and
doing? Will we be rewarded in the future because we did a good
deed in the present, or because we thought we did a good deed?
What happens when we think we are doing good, but are really
doing evil? The Christian Crusaders thought they were doing good
by murdering the Muslim infidels. The modern Muslim leaders of
Iran think they are doing good by holding hostages and conducting
worldwide terrorism. Who will have the good karma, and who the
bad karma - the Israelis or the Arabs? The Christians or the
Muslims? The cops or the robbers? Modern psychology has clearly
demonstrated that most of our mental illness is the result of our
memories. We tend to suppress memories of what we judge were
wrong, and overinflate memories of what we judge was right. We
need to ask ourselves - Is our past karma something external to
us as human beings, like an Angel of Justice waiting to reward or
strike, or is it internal, some kind of psychic power for good or
evil that lies inherent in memory? How we answer this will
determine how we go about eliminating our karmic burden. The
idea that one's karmic burden can be consumed by truth has been
taught for many centuries in the East, yet modern Theosophy is
rather silent on this issue. Could this mysterious process,
known sometimes as enlightenment, have to do with changing one's
past by changing one's memories? Clearly the elimination of
memory will not lead to enlightenment, or else we could all
become enlightened by a sharp knock to the head. Modern
psychology has shown the reverse; only by recalling past events,
reliving our past, and accepting it and coming to terms with it,
can we hope for a healthy present and future. In the same way,
occultism has long taught that as one progresses spiritually, one
will recall past lives. For these reasons, it seems likely that
the occult process of consuming one's personal karma may
incorporate techniques that improve memory. In summary, today we
need to take another look at karma and its connection with
memory. The Law of Karma is only inflexible and uncontrollable
so long as we fail to understand it and to deal properly with it.
An unpleasant past event that has been repressed until it is long
forgotten can have serious control over a person many years
later. Is this karma at work? If that person is able to recall
the memory, and see it in a new light (for example, with
tolerance and forgiveness to those concerned) then the problems
caused by its repression will disappear. In medical terms, such
a person is healed. Could we not say in theosophical terms, that
the person's karma has been consumed, at least in degree? Can
karma be consumed by learning to accept our past with all of its
mistakes and its embarrassments? If so, then today's literature
needs to emphasize this. If not, then how do we go about it? Is
memory the key to our karmic burden? If not, then what is the
key?
3. HANDLING MEMORIES.
My statement that "most of our mental illness is the result
of our memories" is probably an over simplification. Let me
change this to "most of our mental illness is the result of
either (1) physical impairment of the brain, or (2) the inability
to assimilate our memories." In other words, I must also
consider physical causes such as brain damage, chemical
imbalances in the brain, and so on. This seemed like such an
obvious cause, that I left it out of the discussion. Probably
due to my Christian Science upbringing, I tend to over-simplify
all sickness and disease into a single bag labeled "mortal mind."
On the other hand, I still believe that how we handle our
memories (not so much of past lives, but of this one) bears an
incredible weight on the state of our health, and especially our
mental health. By this, I refer to the stereotyped patient going
to his Analyst, lying on a couch, and recalling childhood
experiences. This clinical procedure, called psychoanalysis, can
take many years of intensive effort before unpleasant memories
can be recalled and assimilated. We all have had unpleasant
experiences, especially in childhood. Most, but not all, are
sexually related. We all have repressed, or at least
"forgotten," memories of such experiences. But these repressed
memories have a way of effecting our present, albeit
subconsciously. How they do so, is an individual thing; some
people are hardly effected at all, while others can be
drastically effected. I am not speaking here in terms of
occultism, so much as modern psychology. The late Israel
Regardie, a follower of the Golden Dawn and a closet theosophist,
strongly recommended that everyone interested in the magical or
occult sciences first undergo a year of psychoanalysis as a
prerequisite. I don't happen to agree that professional analysis
is required, but I certainly do agree with Regardie that before
anyone can hope to progress in occultism or theosophy, s/he must
come to terms with their memories - of this life, not of any past
lives (recalling past lives is an ability of an Adept, and few of
us have yet reached that stage). We should be able to clearly
recall everything that has happened to us from earliest
childhood, to the present. Unpleasant memories must be dealt
with - assimilated into our personality either by acceptance, or
some sort of rationalism. The next step is to break the hold
that such memories have over us. This sounds easy, but it is
not. If someone hurt us deeply, then the only sure way to
eliminate the binding power of those memories is forgiveness -
not always easy to do. If we hurt someone, then we must somehow
deal with the guilt that is surely lurking somewhere in the
depths of our subconscious. The interesting thing here is that,
as we overcome the hold that our memories have on us, we will
find that our past karma is also losing its hold over us.
Memories of past lives will not relieve the tension of
insanity. Truth is, if we could fully recall our past lives, we
would probably be driven insane rather than the reverse. Only an
Adept could handle such a burden. As it happens, such recall is
usually in pieces rather than all at once, so that we can
assimilate it slowly, as we develop spiritually, rather than
having it overwhelm us. H.P.B. wrote that, "Memory is an
artificial thing, an adjunct of relativeness; it can be sharpened
or left dull, and it depends on the condition of the brain-cells
which store all impressions." She is saying that memory is
brain-dependent. I have always thought that this has to be so,
else how do we explain amnesia? The interesting thing about this
is that when we die, our memories die with the brain - or at
least the detailed memories of names, places, dates, and so on.
What survives is what Blavatsky calls the "aroma" of our past
life. It seems to me that if we want to effect our next life for
the better, we should improve the "aroma" of this one.
4. PAIN VS. JOY.
Patanjali wrote, "To the illuminated man all existence is
considered pain." The Eastern notion that life is necessarily
pain and suffering bothers me. Even a cursory look at the
world's major religions and philosophies will show that man has
two very opposite views of mortal life. In the one view life is
seen as a trial or test of our faith in a world with little or no
divine guidance. This view contrasts the physical world of
temporal flesh and matter against a spiritual world of eternal
happiness and finds the former wanting. In the other view, life
is seen a divine gift, where each day is to be lived in joy and
thanksgiving. These are two very different ways of viewing the
world and both have been existing together for a very long time.
Most religions see God as residing in a spiritual realm of near
perfection far from our everyday world on Earth. The physical
world is guided by demons or devils, or by chance, and our duty
in life is to suffer through it as best we can, with a promise of
heavenly bliss in a subtle body after death of our physical body.
Christianity has certainly championed this view. But Buddhism
also teaches that life is suffering, and also promises a way to
reach a more perfect life. So too does Islam, Hinduism, Taoism
and Yoga. Few religions see physical life as a divine blessing.
Few find joy and happiness in the physical body. Few seek no
"higher" life in spiritual realms. Nevertheless, such do exist.
Perhaps the best known group with this view are those who
practice witchcraft, or Wicca, as they prefer to name their
craft. Wicca is an old religion, dating back beyond Christianity
by many centuries. Its originators worshipped the Mother
Goddess, the Goddess of Earth. This Goddess took on many forms
and names in different countries over the centuries, but
essentially she has always represented nature, and her body has
always been identified with our physical Earth. All living
beings on Earth are her children. Wicca proposes a few hidden or
occult laws, which can be practiced; thus Wicca sees itself as a
craft rather than a formal religion with fixed doctrines or
creeds. Merging with Wicca, at least in some degree, are the
religions of the American Indians, and various other forms of
Shamanism found in "primitive" tribal groups throughout the
world. Our ancestors, as evidenced by shamans and witches over
the world, were content with their lot on Earth, and never felt
the desire to overcome natural law by rising above it. The
femininity of divinity by witches and shamans lends itself to a
sense of religious tolerance toward others. After all, we are
all Her children and the Mother is forgiving to Her children.
The masculinity of divinity by the world's major religions, lends
itself to a sense of religious intolerance toward others. After
all, it is the father who punishes disobedience. Because one
side is tolerant and passive while the other is intolerant and
active, it is not surprising that history shows one side to have
systematically tried to eliminate the other side with almost no
real opposition. But Wicca is not the only group to teach that
physical life can be joyous. Aleister Crowley and his O.T.O.
also teach this. Of course, there are some who would argue that
these are all Black Magicians and should thus be discounted. But
whatever their color, it is a fact that there is a strong current
in Western Occultism that sees physical life as a divine
expression, and has no desire to escape from life, but would
rather live a full life here and now; understand life and live in
the present, rather than worry about the future in some
after-death state.
I can't help thinking that the concept of life as joyously
divine, and the concept of life as suffering represents a
powerful duality. The truth, I think, lies somewhere in the
middle.
There is a special teaching of Magic; there are three kinds
of Adepts. The Yellow Adept is one who renounces all attachment
to this world. He (or she) eliminates emotions and feelings.
She is neutral to her environment. The Black Adept is one who
renounces the manifested worlds as maya. He sees it all as
illusion. He is negative to his environment. The White Adept is
one who lives in the world with joy and thanksgiving. She is
positive to her environment. According to this teaching of
Magic, as we progress and reach Adeptship/Adepthood in our own
right, we will each come to apoint where we must decide for
ourself which of these Adepts we will be. This teaching is
interesting, for several reasons. For one thing, the three
Adepts are each a reflex of the triune Sat-Cit-Ananda
(consciousness, existence, bliss) of Hinduism and Vedanta. They
also represent the three possible responses that we can have with
the world - positive, negative, or neutrality. Although it is
theoretically possible to combine these reactions, I suspect that
the result would be a non-duality, and we would find ourselves on
another plane altogether. However, I think that it is possible
to combine these views in this lifetime. But for most of us, as
long as we live in this world, we will probably find one of these
views more to our liking than the others.
As to pain and suffering, we probably need to define our
terms here. I tend to think of suffering as a general concept of
some degree of unhappiness or discomfort. We suffer on all
levels. I usually think of pain as physical suffering (i.e.,
pain is a subset of suffering). By this definition, we can have
suffering without pain (as for example, mental anguish), but we
can not have pain without suffering. Can we be subjected to
pain, as in illness for example, and not suffer for it? I think
that the answer to such a question is yes. As an example, look
at Ramakrishna, the great Bengali saint of the last century. He
spent almost all of his time bathed in the bliss of mystical
ecstasy, while he had cancer, from which he finally died. The
cancer must have given him a great deal of pain (there was no
treatment in those days). He explained his cancer as the effect
of himself as guru taking on the karma of his students. Anyway,
his cancer did not stop him from experiencing samadhi, from
teaching, or from enjoying life.
5. KARMA OF THE TEACHER.
There is an occult penalty incurred whenever a person tries
to reveal truth. Every Adept, in some degree, has had to become
a Christ (Chrestos), a 'man of sorrow' or a martyr. In a highly
occult sense, this is true. It has to do with the karma taken on
by the revealing. Of course, this principle works in degree, and
not all have suffered "violent deaths" as a result, but only
those few who are foremost in our exoteric histories, and that
because of the karma of their particular situation. I was faced
with this sort of decision myself when I decided to write my
books on Enochian Magic (I have authored, together with my wife,
several books on magic and how magic works). The information
that I wanted to give out is highly susceptible to abuse. On the
one hand, I knew that publishing such material would cause myself
a lot of karma, because such material can bring a lot of grief to
those not capable of handling it. On the other hand, the
ignorance of the general public on the subject of magic is
appalling, and needs to be alleviated. I chose to publish.
While I am certainly not equating my own situation to that of
Buddha or Jesus, nevertheless, the same karmic principle is at
work. For example, each person who places an article on this
network, who puts his/her ideas in print thereby affecting the
lives of others, comes under this principle at least in some
degree. It is a two-edged sword. By affecting others, we will
inevitably help some and hurt some. In my own case, I felt that
the good would outweigh the bad. The jury is still out.
6. DISCRIMINATING THE KARMA OF OTHERS.
There is an occult ability, gained by most Adepts, to
correctly discriminate another's stage of evolutionary
development, and thus observe their karmic burden. I cannot
emphasize this enough: no one has the right to arbitrarily
discriminate the evolutionary stage of another. No one. Not
even the highest Adept will do this, though they have the power
to do so. The insidious idea that "I am more advanced than you,"
or that "you are more advanced than me," will bring karmic
retribution in spades. If you think that you are more advanced
than others, your own conceit proves you wrong. If you think
that others are more advanced than you, this idea itself will
retard your progress. I see nothing wrong with concern for your
own personal growth, but please, leave others to grow as they
will - Is the daisy any more advanced than the tulip? Are men
any more advanced than women? Who is to say? Anyone who says "I
am not ready" for such discrimination - my response is:
hopefully, you never will be.
7. POSSESSION.
The two causes that I listed above for mental illness
(physical and memory impairment) could be considered
"normal"causes, or "natural" causes. Possession could be
considered a third cause. However, I would like to point out
that possession, that is, the taking over of the mind of one
person by another being (human or otherwise, embodied or
disembodied) is an extremely difficult thing to prove. Most
medical authorities consider it as superstition. I have read
some very interesting and well-documented cases of schizophrenia
or multiple personalities. On the other hand, how many
well-documented cases of possession has anyone read? With split
personalities (which occur far more often than most of us would
like to think) the treatment is to assimilate the fragmented
parts into one whole. With possession the treatment is to expel
the unwanted part - just the opposite. I think that in the past,
most mental disorders were routinely charged to possession by
demons or whatever (this is also true within "primitive"
societies). Nowadays we know that our own egos can become
overinflated, underinflated, split up, repressed, introverted,
extraverted, and so on. We no longer need to blame others for
our own problems. I do believe in possession; the history and
philosophy of occultism demonstrate its reality. However, I
personally do not think that it happens very often. I think that
what does frequently happen, is that we become possessed by an
emotion or a concept. Fear and hatred, for example can possess
us in a very real way and make us do things that we would
otherwise not do. Patriotism can possess us and make us do
terrible things, as well as nobel things. I think that this kind
of "possession" is typical, while being controlled by a
discarnate entity is atypical - rare, but nevertheless does
occur.
8. OVERCOMING KARMA.
Spiritual enlightenment, but especially liberation, if
nothing else, implies becoming karma-less. Tibetan initiates
refer to the karma-less condition as liberation, in the sense of
freedom from personal karmic attachments. Although it would seem
that we should all be striving to obtain good karma and eliminate
bad karma, this is actually an exoteric view, and will never lead
to liberation. It is similar to the world's religions, which
teach that we must strive to be moral and "good" and then all of
our problems will be solved in the after-life or in the next
incarnation (It is all too obvious to me that developing strong
morals does not, of itself, bring either enlightenment or
liberation. Nor are "good" people any more free from their karma
than anyone else.) Certainly moral and ethical development are
important - but they will not bring either enlightenment or
liberation. Lets consider liberation the state of being free
from personal karmic attachments (collective karma is another
story, and is binding to some degree so long as one wears a
physical body). Lets consider enlightenment as the attainment of
spiritual consciousness or samadhi. Enlightenment will thus
bring about liberation automatically. However, liberation will
not automatically bring about enlightenment. For example, a
child is "liberated" because free from personal karma until the
age of seven. However, a child can hardly be said to be
enlightened. H.P.B. writes that, "You should bear in mind that,
in becoming karma-less, good Karma, as well as bad, has to be
gotten rid of, and that Nidanas, started toward the acquisition
of good Karma, are as binding as those induced in the other
direction. For both are Karma." (THE INNER GROUP TEACHINGS OF
H.P. BLAVATSKY, page 8). She says very clearly here that good
karma is as binding as bad karma. In poetical terms, golden
chains bind as surely as iron chains. It has been a closely
guarded teaching for many centuries that neither moral nor
intellectual development are required for enlightenment. In
fact, most Adepts adopt their own moral values after their
enlightenment, which do not necessarily reflect those of society.
This is because one of the natural fallouts of enlightenment is
the ability to see that good and evil are relative and not
absolute concepts. Thus the Adept is apt to say or do things
that appear to others as outrageous, or "wicked." S/He becomes,
not immoral, but rather amoral. For example, Jesus did only good
in the eyes of his devoted followers, but he was a dangerous
trouble-maker in the eyes of the Jewish communities because he
challenged many of their sacred traditions. The story of J.
Krishnamurti is a more recent example. The student, upon
awakening to their inner divinity, may or may not feel gratitude
to their teacher. S/he may or may not continue the established
teachings. It cannot be predicted in advance, and for this
reason the karma-less condition of liberation is not without its
dangers. It is dangerous to admit that moral development is not
necessary. The problem is that without it, a fall into Black
Magic is not only easy but is almost certain. Moral development
and altruism are needed, not for enlightenment, but in order to
point the enlightened consciousness in the "right" direction.
This idea is outlined in the famous biography of the Tibetan
saint, Milarepa. This man became a powerful magician without
moral development and brought some very bad karma onto himself by
killing a man through magic. The rest of his life was spent in
eliminating his bad karma, and then his good karma. He
eventually became liberated, but only after a long series of
painful learning and purification experiences. It is also
dangerous to suggest that moral development and altruism are
enough. They are not. No one will ever become karma-less by
reading books (theosophical or otherwise) and doing good deeds.
Its not that we should not do good deeds - we should. But we
should not be attached to them, or to their outcome. We should
not expect reward or recognition for helping others. We should
help others as a matter of course, just as we would expect them
to help us. "Good" deeds should not be viewed as "good." In
summary: If our goal is to accumulate good karma for ourselves,
then we will never be liberated from karma. If our goal is to
become liberated, then we need to dispense with good and evil all
together and become amoral, like a child. If our goal is to help
others less fortuneate than ourselves, then our karmic burden
will probably take care of itself and we need not be concerned
about it - but how many of us can hold such a lofty goal?
9. RELATIVE KARMA.
Einstein's theory of relativity provided science with a giant
leap forward in our ability to understand our world. Relativity
did not eliminate the earlier work of Newton and other dedicated
scientists, but rather expanded upon it. Although the
mathematics of relativity are highly complex, the bottom line is
quite simple: existence is relative to an observer of it, and
nothing is absolute except the speed of light. According to
Einstein's theory of relativity, all observers, no matter where
they are located, will measure the speed of light exactly the
same, but all other measurments will vary slightly according to
the position and motion of the observers. Everything but the
speed of light must be measured relative to the position and
motion of the observer. And we, as observers, are in constant
motion, because the Earth spins on its axis, revolves with other
planets around the sun, hurdles within the solar system through
the galaxy, and within the galaxy through the universe.
The laws of physics established by Newton only hold relative
to our Earth, or to what is called an inertial reference frame.
Could it be that the law of karma is also relative? If so,
relative to what reference frame? Furthermore, what would such a
relativity mean to us? First of all, what is karma? The law of
karma is essentially the law of cause and effect. It says
that every event that occurs in time, does so in a cause-effect
manner; every event that occurs in the present is the effect of a
past cause and is, in turn, the cause of a future effect. With
quiet reflection, we can see that this law does appear to be
guiding our daily events on Earth. As we work out our old karma
(sometimes called our "karmic debt"), we are simultaneously
accumulating new karma. If karma is relative, then, like
Einstein's relativity, it must only exist relative to an
observer. In other words, it must be relative to each person.
My karma would not be your karma. Everyone would have a unique
karma, or 'karmic burden' to be worked out. Whenever a group of
people come together to share an experience, each accumulates a
unique karmic burden from the same event. We can say, then, that
every event produces karma that is relative to each participant.
Einstein's theory of relativity requires that space and time
be combined together into a continuum. We can then map events on
an orthogonal chart by plotting space and time along the two
perpendicular coordinates. Lets imagine a figure which can
serve as an example of such a chart. Imagine two perpendicular
lines, with time plotted along the horizontal line (x-axis), and
space plotted along the vertical line (y-axis). Now imagine two
mirror-image hyperbolas meeting together along the upper portion
of the vertical space-axis. Below the horizontal line, space is
negative, and no longer easy to imagine, so both curves must be
above the horizontal line. These two curves represent the future
and the past of one person. The future hyperbolic curve is
open-ended to the right with its apex just touching the vertical
line. The past hyperbolic curve is open-ended to the left with
its apex just touching the vertical line. The two curves touch
together at some point along the vertical line above the
horizontal line.
Lets suppose that this is your own chart. The point on the
space-axis where the two curves meet is your present location in
space and time. Both curves show that with increased distance in
time, your future (to the right) and your past (to the left)
spread out into a wide, but finite, range of possible events. As
they approach the present, they converge together, so that less
and less possible events occur. The point where they touch
together allows for only one event, and that is what is occurring
right now, in your present.
In this scenario, our karma can be defined as the principle
or law that determines which of our possible future events will
occur to us in the present. The outward-curving nature of the
future shows it to be an expanding field of possibilities. These
possibilities are only allowed to manifest one-at-a-time in the
present, as karmic conditions become suitable. Karma also
determines which past events will effect our present. The
curving nature of the past, as shown in our imagined chart,
represents the fuzziness of past events, as they recede into
human memory. Many people, who accept the curve of the future,
are surprised by the curve of the past. But the past can be
changed, simply by changing our memory of it. It can also be
changed by finding out new information, such as the memory of
past events by others which is different from our own. For
example, suppose that a friend did something that hurt you very
much. The memory of such an event will strongly effect your
present. You may find yourself hating this person, and doing
things to get revenge. At the very least, you will feel sorrow
and no longer like your friend as much as you did previously.
Suppose that later on you discover that the hurtful deed was
actually done by someone else. Your friend didn't hurt you after
all. A past event changes. This new information about what
'really' happened, now begins to effect you, and you feel regret
for what you had thought about your friend. This simplified
example shows that our past events (like our future, our past is
actually a set of probable events) can change, and how they
change can directly effect our present. We are affected by our
past events, primarily to the degree that we remember them, or
are otherwise made aware of them, even when such memory is
subconscious. In fact, repressed memories (those that we
deliberately choose to forget) often have a greater effect on our
present condition than recalled events.
In our imagined chart, the curve of our future extends to
the right, into infinite future time, and the curve of our past
extends to the left, into infinite past time. Somehow, these
infinite surfaces touch together, and the two curves are actually
one. Relativity predicts such bazaar things as black holes and
wormholes through spacetime connecting two or more continuums, or
two positions in our continuum. It also says that space is
curved and our universe is spherical. In the same way, time is
curved so that our past events are linked to our future events,
and affect us in cyclic ways not fully understood. Our past, to
some degree, curves around to become our future. We can be
affected in the present by events that lie in our future as well
as by events that lie in our past. As our past and future
changes, so our present changes. Similarly, we can change our
past and our future. As our present changes, so our past and
future changes. Past and future exist relative to an individual
observer or group of observers in the present. The only absolute
constant is the present. Like the speed of light, the present
moment, which exists for only a tiny fraction of a second, is
always the same for everyone.
How can the present be constant for everyone, when it seems
clear that we each live our own independent lives, each different
from the other. According to the world's mystics, this is
because practically no one lives totally in the present. We all
live most of the time in our past or our future, somewhere in
the two hyperbolic curves, rather than in their junction. And
the past and future are relative. We spend much more time
dreaming about our personal future events, and reviewing our
personal past ones than actually being aware of our present.
Perhaps this is because the present so quickly becomes the
past? By the time we think about what is happening, it has
already happened. The present can be fully entered only when we
concentrate our thoughts, which implies some technique of quiet
meditation. Only mystics and yogis are, almost by definition,
fully aware of the present. But if most of us cannot live fully
in the present, at least we can be aware that we are usually
living in our future or our past (in the same way, the speed of
light has little practical meaning for most of us).
Karma, like the theory of relativity, can be viewed in two
ways. Relativity has a special and a general theory. In the
same way, karma has a personal and a collective aspect. Karma
can exist relative to one individual, or relative to a group of
individuals. But, by definition, there is no absolute karma so
that the same type of karma cannot apply to everything. There
must be different types of karma, which correspond to different
environments or worlds. There is a karma for the physical world
of Earth, and a different one for each cosmic plane - a physical
karma, an astral karma, a mental karma, and so on. The karma
that affects our physical world of matter is not the same as
that which affects our emotions, nor again that which affects our
thinking. The continuum of modern science is two-dimensional
(space and time), while the theosophical continuum is
three-dimensional (space, time, and cosmic planes).
What are the external effects of a karmic change? When one
person changes his or her karma, it always effects those in the
surrounding environment, to some degree. In the same way, a
karmic change on one cosmic plane will always effect other cosmic
planes to some extent. When we look at the special case,
at personal karma, all such external effects are ignored. But
when we consider collective karma, these external effects must be
included.
What does all of this really mean to us? It means that we
experience events alone. Sharing is only possible to a degree;
always greater than zero, but never 100 percent. The amount of
sharing is equal to the amount of collective karma present.
Conversely, collective karma can be defined as the amount of
shared experience that is present during any particular event.
We each react to an event in a slightly unique way. In the last
anaysis, we each have our own karmic burden, which must be worked
out in our own way. This makes salvation to be a very personal
business. The importance of compassion for others becomes clear;
we each must face our day-to-day situations in our own way. In
many cases, our compassion may go farther to help others than our
advice, which however well-meaning, may not be applicable to
another's needs.
10. KARMA AND YOUR KARMIC BURDEN.
Most people today have some understanding of the doctrine of
karma. Karma is the law cause and effect. According to the
doctrine of karma, every action is the effect of one or more
previous actions, and will be the cause of one or more future
actions. Karma is closely associated with the concept of time;
karma can be considered the flow of cause and effect through
time. The doctrine of karma is usually accompanied by the
doctrine of reincarnation; each life is the effect of previous
lives and will be the cause of future lives. We incarnate on
Earth to gain experiences, to learn the lessons of nature which
allow us to evolve spiritually, and to express the lessons
learned, or lack thereof, from past lives. With each life we
either increase or decrease what can be called our karmic burden.
This is the residue of karma, both good and bad, that has been
accumulated at any point in time.
Under normal circumstances, we need only work out a small
portion of our karmic burden during any one lifetime. However,
when we take a magical vow to tread the spiritual path, or to
conduct the Great Work, we are actually saying that we wish to
work out our entire karmic burden now, during this life. The
chief danger of making a firm resolve to study magic, yoga, or
theosophy is that the student unleashes the forces of their own
karmic burden which otherwise would remain repressed until
conditions brought them forth in future lives. The net effect is
that the student can expect a series of unpleasant and terrible
events to occur. Christian mystics have called this phase of
spiritual development, 'the Dark Night of the Soul.' While the
student seeks after health and wealth, s/he often finds sickness
and poverty instead. The student must remember that this phase
is temporary, lasting only so long as their karmic burden
necessitates. The intensity and duration of this karmic
confrontation is highly personal and varies with each student.
If the student can last through this difficult period, the
rewards will be great.
11. A LOOK AT REINCARNATION AND KARMA.
The doctrine of reincarnation, together with its
complementary doctrine of the law or principle of Karma, are the
twin foundation stones of modern theosophy and have been adopted
by the mainstream New Age movement. But are they correctly
understood? Does theosophy/New Age teach that we are all
compelled to undergo a long series of births and deaths under the
sway of karma, from far past ages, to far future ages? If we
think of our present thoughts and deeds as an effect of our past
thoughts and deeds and as the cause for our future thoughts and
deeds, we will begin to think of the reincarnation cycle as an
impersonal treadmill that goes on forever without conceivable
end. How did it ever start? How will it ever end? Every
thought produces more thoughts. Every deed demands another.
Every wrong must be righted. Each right must be rewarded. In
the East this endless process is symbolized by a wheel - the
Wheel of Life which rolls on and on throughout endless time.
The exoteric tradition teaches that we will live and die
millions of times, while we try to pay our karmic debts and reap
our karmic rewards. The BARDO THODOL (TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD)
for example, depicts the disembodied consciousness of a normal
human being as being blown about the after-death state by fierce
karmic winds. Are we totally at the mercy of our karma? Some
theosophists have said that every action we make will have karmic
effects, and even a failure to act can produce karmic effects.
Is there nothing we can do but try to create better karma in
order to make our future lives more pleasant? Is there nothing
that we can do that will improve this life? The esoteric
tradition teaches that there is something we can do. It teaches
that our karmic burden can be "consumed" in the "flames" of
spiritual insight. It teaches that this can be done now, in this
lifetime. Furthermore, it teaches that if we leave this great
task to a future lifetime, it will never take place. Things left
to the future will always remain in the future.
Should we concern ourselves more with the exoteric view, or
the esoteric view? Should we in the West, like Buddha and other
spiritual thinkers in the East, teach that the cycle of
reincarnation can be broken, or that karma can be purged? If so,
should it teach techniques for bringing this about? Modern
theosophy has been teaching the ethical path, and the
intellectual path. It notes the psychic path, and warns against
it. It notes the mystical path, but leaves it to those who are
inherently attuned to it. Should it teach the spiritual path?
What is the spiritual path? Is it attainable? In
theosophical terms, the Divine Breath is said to have exhaled,
bringing forth the seven cosmic planes of manifestation. We each
cycle the lower of these planes in the process known as
reincarnation. The spiritual path, if it is to be anything at
all, can be considered as any path which leads us from the lower
cosmic planes of gross matter, into the lofty spiritual planes of
divinity. Exoterically, it is the path from matter to spirit,
from samsara to nirvana, from becoming to Beness. Esoterically,
it is a path that leads from duality to nonduality. It is a path
which is no-path. On the spiritual path, we must become the path
itself because the only thing that can move along it, is our own
consciousness. H.P.B.'s VOICE OF THE SILENCE is an excellent
primer for the spiritual path, but most theosophists have said
little about it. In H.P.B.'s time, it was considered a book for
"the Few." Does this still hold for today?
How can the cycle of reincarnation be broken? The answer
lies in how we define our sense of identity. As long as we
identify our self with the human body, or with the human mind, we
will remain under the sway of karma and as long as we thirst for
physical life we will reincarnate. Theosophy/New Age teaches
that we each have a spiritual counterpart, a "monadic essence" at
the core of our being. If we identity our self with this inner
divine spark, can we then break the cycle of reincarnation? Can
we then eliminate the thirst for physical existence? And if so,
should we? There are those who say that we can and should.
Practitioners of yoga and magic, and most Eastern religions,
for example, have this as their ultimate goal. There are also
those who say that we can but shouldn't. Most worshippers of the
Mother Goddess, or Gaia, in some form, such as modern
practitioners of Wicca, feel that physical existence is joyous,
and they make no attempt to end their cycles of reincarnation
(which would be tantamount to overcoming their Goddess). Also,
many spiritual leaders feel that we should deliberately return to
the physical world to help others (the Bodisattva of Mahayana
Buddhism, for example). Furthermore, some feel that our inner
divinity is inherently creative, and that it will always manifest
itself in the lower cosmic planes somewhere, if only to be
self-expressed. To them, the spiritual path only breaks the
cycles of reincarnation temporarily (i.e., for a rest in what in
what is called a pralaya). Which path should we follow?
In an esoteric sense, life and death are two poles of a
duality. We die because we were born. Our physical life is an
unfoldment of our inner spiritual life. Unfoldment or the
downward expression of spirit into matter is always followed by
its polar opposite; the upward expression of matter into spirit.
The cycle of reincarnation is only one of many cycles. All
things cycle. All manifestation is a cycling of "wheels within
wheels." If this is so, then perhaps the urge to escape the
Wheel of Life is as much Maya as the desire for its continuance?
If birth and death are a duality, then perhaps the desire for
incarnation (the physical path) and the desire for an escape
from it (the spiritual path) also form a dualism? How should the
New Age movement approach this paradox? Is it enough to simply
teach that reincarnation and karma exist? Is it enough to say
that they can be overcome?
In the East, one who has quenched the thirst for further
physical life is called a jivamukti. He is liberated from the
cycle of reincarnation. He no longer needs to reincarnate. He
is free of personal karma. Should this be our goal? Should we
set up "criteria" for becoming liberated? Or should we stress
the need for living in the world, and for helping others? Does
reincarnation have a purpose? If a spiritual monad takes on eons
of self-expression just to become spiritual again, what is the
point? (To claim that the monad returns to a "higher" spiritual
condition begs the issue, and invites embarrassing questions such
as where did this whole business begin? If we look for origins,
we will never get anywhere at all.) The future of the New Age
movement depends on how we answer these and other important
questions today.
Return