REINCARNATION/PART 12
CHAPTER XII.
The
Law of Karma.
"Karma" is
a term in general use among the Hindus, and the Western believers in
Reincarnation, the meaning of which is susceptible of various shades of
definition and interpretation. It is most important to all students of the
subject of Reincarnation, for it is the companion doctrine—the twin-truth—to
the doctrine of Metempsychosis. Strictly speaking, "Karma" is the Law
of Cause and Effect as applied to the life of the soul—the law whereby it reaps
the results of its own sowing, or suffers the reaction from its own action. To
the majority of Reincarnationists, however, it has a larger meaning, and is
used in the sense of the Law of Justice, or the Law of Reward and Punishment,
operating along the lines of personal experience, personal life, and personal character.
Many authorities hold
that the original idea of Karma was that of a great natural law operating along
exact lines, as do the laws of mathematics and chemistry, bringing forth the
exact effect from every cause, and being, above all, questions of good or evil,
reward or punishment, morality or immorality, etc., and acting as a great
natural force above all such questions of human conduct. To those who still
adhere to this conception, Karma is like the Law of Gravitation, which operates
without regard to persons, morals or questions of good and evil, just as does
any other great natural law. In this view the only "right" or
"wrong" would be the effect of an action—that is, whether it was
conducive to one's welfare and that of the race, or the reverse. In this view,
if a child places its hand on a hot stove, the action is "wrong,"
because it brings pain and unhappiness, although the act is neither moral or
immoral. And another action is "right" because it brings happiness,
well-being and satisfaction, present and future, although the act was neither
moral nor immoral. In this view there can be neither reward nor
punishment, in the common acceptation of the term, although in another sense
there is a reward for such "right" doing, and a punishment for such
"wrong" doing, as the child with the burnt hand may testify to.
In this sense of the
term, some of the older schools of Reincarnation accepted Karma as determining
the Re-Birth, along the lines of Desire and Attraction, holding that the souls'
character would attract it to re-birth along the lines of its strongest
desires, and in such environment as would give it the greatest opportunity to
work out those desires into action, taking the pains and pleasures of
experience arising from such action, and thus moulding a new, or fuller
character, which would create new Karma, which would determine the future
birth, etc., and so on, and on. Those holding to this view believed that in
this way the soul would learn its lesson, with many a crack over the knuckles,
and with the pain of many an experience that would tend to turn it into the
road most conducive to spiritual happiness and well-being; and lead it away
from the road of material desires and pleasures, because the repeated
experiences had shown that no true spiritual well-being was to be obtained
therefrom. In other words, the soul, in its spiritual childhood, was just like
a little child in the physical world, learning by experience that some things
worked for its "good" and others for "bad." This view
naturally carried with it the idea that true ethics would show that whatever
tended toward the advancement of the soul was "good," and whatever
retarded its advancement was "bad," in spite of any arbitrary
standard of right or wrong erected by man during the ages, and which standard
has constantly changed from time to time, is changing now, and always will
change.
But the Hindu mind,
especially, soon enlarged upon this original idea of Karma, and the priests of
India soon had the idea of Karma working as a great rewarder of
"good," and a great punisher of "evil." Corresponding to
the rewards and punishments in the future life, as taught by Christian
preachers, the Hindu priests held over the sinner the terrors of Karma; and the
rewards promised the good people from the same source served to spur on the
worshiper to actions in accordance with the ethics of the particular church
preaching the doctrine. It was taught that the man's future state, in the next
incarnation, and perhaps for many others, depended upon his state of
"goodness," in accordance with the laws of the church and priestly
teaching—surely as powerful an argument and as terrifying a threat as the
orthodox "bribe of heaven, and threat of hell" of the Western world.
The effect of this teaching is seen among the masses of the but slightly
educated Hindu classes of today, who are very desirous of acquiring
"merit" by performing some "good" deed, such as bestowing
alms upon the wandering religious mendicant; making contributions to the temples,
etc., as well as performing the acts of ordinary good will toward men; and who
are as equally anxious to avoid acquiring "demerit" from the lack of
proper observances, and the performance of improper actions. While the general
effect of this may be in the direction of holding the ignorant masses in the
ethical road most conducive to the public weal, it also has a tendency to
foster credulity, superstition and imposition, just as do similar teachings in
any land, time, under the cover of any religion. There is a strong family
resemblance between these teachings among all the religions, and there are many
men who hold that this "crack of the theological whip" is most
necessary for the keeping of the masses of the people in the strait road of
morality, they being held incapable of the practice of "doing good for
good's sake, and avoiding evil because it is evil." We shall not discuss
this question—decide it for yourself.
One of the strongest
applications of the above mentioned form of the doctrine in India is the
teaching that the caste of the man in his next incarnation will be determined
by his degree of "good conduct" in the present life—and that his
present caste has been determined by his conduct in his previous lives. No
one who has not studied the importance of "caste" in India can begin
to understand how powerful a lever this teaching is upon the people of India.
From the exalted Brahman caste, the priestly caste—down to the Sudra caste of
unskilled laborers, or even still further down to the Pariahs or outcasts, the
caste lines are strongly marked; the higher caste person deeming it the
greatest disgrace to be touched by one of an inferior caste, or to eat food
prepared by a lower-caste person, and so on in every act of daily life. The
only comparison possible to the American mind is the attitude of the old-time
Southerner toward the lowest class of negroes, and even in this case the
prejudice does not extend so far as in the case of the Hindus, for the
Southerner will eat food cooked by a negro servant, and will permit the latter
to shave him, act as his valet, etc., something at which the high-caste Hindu
would be horrified on the part of one below him in caste. This being
understood, it is easy to see how careful a high-caste Hindu would be to avoid
performing actions which might rob him of his caste in his next life, and how
powerful an incentive it is to a low-caste Hindu to strive for birth in a
higher caste after many incarnations. To people holding such a view, birth in a
low caste is the mark of crime and evil action performed in a previous life,
and the low-born is accordingly felt to be worthy of no respect. We understand,
from Hindu acquaintances, that this idea is gradually being dispelled in India,
and an era of common human brotherhood and common interest is beginning to
manifest itself.
In the Western world,
the Reincarnationists, without doubt, have been greatly affected by the
prevailing orthodox Hindu conception of Karma, rather than by the Grecian and
general occult conception. Although there are many who regard Karma as rather a
moulder of character, and consequently a prime factor in the re-birth, rather
than as a dispenser of rewards and punishments—still, there are many who,
discarding the orthodox Devil of their former faith, have found a worthy substitute
for him in their conception of Karma, and manifest the same terror and fear of
the new devil as of the old one—and his name may be summed up as FEAR, in both
cases.
Theosophists have
discussed the matter of Karma very thoroughly, and their leading authorities
have written much about it, its various interpretations showing in the shades
of opinion among the writers. Generally speaking, however, it may be said that
they have bridged over the chasm between the "natural law" idea and
that of "the moral law," with its rewards and punishments, by an
interpretation which places one foot on each conception, holding that there is
truth in each. Of course, justice requires the reference of that student to the
Theosophical writings themselves, for a detailed understanding of their views,
but we feel that a brief summary of their general interpretation would be in
order at this place.
One of their leading
authorities states that the Law of Karma is automatic in action, and that there
is no possible escape from it. He likewise holds that Absolute Justice is
manifested in its operations, the idea of mercy or wrath being absent from it;
and that, consequently, every debt must be paid in full, to the last penny, and
that there is no vicarious atonement or exceptions made in answer to
supplications to a higher source. But he particularly states that this action
of the law must not be confused with ordinary reward and punishment for
"good deed or bad," but that the law acts just as does any other law
of Nature, just as if we put our hand in the fire we shall be burned as a
natural consequence, and not as a punishment. In his statement of this view he
says: "We hold that sorrow and suffering flow from sin just precisely in
that way, under the direct working of natural law. It may be said, perhaps,
that, obviously, the good man does not always reap his reward of good results,
nor does the wicked man always suffer. Not always immediately; not always
within our ken; but assuredly, eventually and inexorably." The writer then
goes on to define his conception of Good and Evil. He says: "We shall
see more clearly that this must be so if we define exactly what we mean by good
and evil. Our religious brothers would tell us that that was good which was in
accordance with God's will, and that that was evil which was in opposition to
it. The scientific man would say that that was good which helped evolution, and
whatever hindered it was evil. Those two men are in reality saying exactly the
same thing; for God's will for man is evolution, and when that is clearly
realized all conflict between religion and science is at once ended. Anything,
therefore, which is against evolution of humanity as a whole is against the
Divine will. We see at once that when a man struggles to gain anything for himself
at the expense of others he is distinctly doing evil, and it is evil because it
is against the interest of the whole. Therefore the only true gain is that
which is a gain for the race as a whole, and the man who gains something
without cost or wrong to anyone is raising the whole race somewhat in the
process. He is moving in the direction of evolution, while the other man
is moving against it."
The same writer then
gives the list of the three kinds of Karma, according to the Hindu teachings,
namely: "1. There is the Samchita, or 'piled up' Karma—the whole mass that
still remains behind the man not yet worked out—the entire unpaid balance of
the debit and credit account; 2. There is the Prarabdha, or 'beginning'
Karma—the amount apportioned to the man at the commencement of each life—his
destiny for that life, as it were; 3. There is the Kriomana Karma, that which
we are now, by our actions in this present life, making for the future."
He further states: "That second type, the Prarabdha Karma, is the only
destiny which can be said to exist for man. That is what an astrologer might
foretell for us—that we have apportioned to us so much good or evil fortune—so
much the result of the good and evil actions of our past lives which will react
on us in this. But we should remember always that this result of previous
action can never compel us to action in the present. It may put us under
conditions in which it will be difficult to avoid an act, but it can never
compel us to commit it. The man of ordinary development would probably yield to
the circumstances and commit the act; but he may assert his free will, rise
superior to the circumstances, and gain a victory and a step in evolution. So
with a good action, no man is forced into that either, but an opportunity is
given to him. If he takes it certain results will follow—not necessarily a
happy or a wealthy life next time, but certainly a life of wider opportunity.
That seems to be one of the things that are quite certain—that the man who has
done well in this life has always the opportunity of doing still better in the
next. This is nature's reward for good work—the opportunity to do more work. Of
course, wealth is a great opportunity, so the reward often comes in that form,
but the essence of the reward is the opportunity and not the pleasure which may
be supposed to accompany the wealth." Another Theosophical writer says
further on the subject of Karma: "Just as all these phases of Karma have
sway over the individual man, so they similarly operate upon races, nations and
families. Each race has its karma as a whole. If it be good, that race goes
forward; if bad, it goes out—annihilated as a race—though the souls concerned
take up their karma in other races and bodies. Nations cannot escape their
national karma, and any nation that has acted in a wicked manner must suffer
some day, be it soon or late." The same writer sums up the idea of
individual unhappiness in any life, as follows: "(a) It is punishment for
evil done in past lives; or (b) it is discipline taken up by the Ego for the
purpose of eliminating defects or acquiring fortitude and sympathy. When
defects are eliminated it is like removing the obstruction in an irrigating
canal which then lets the water flow on. Happiness is explained in the same
way—the result of prior lives of goodness."
The general idea of a
number of writers on the subject of Karma is that "as ye sow, so shall ye
reap," brought down to a wonderful detail of arrangement, and effect
flowing from causes. This conception, carried to its logical conclusion, would
insist that every single bit of pain and unhappiness in this life is the result
of some bad deed done either in the present life or in the past, and every bit
of happiness, joy or pleasure, the result of some good action performed either
in the present or past life. This conception of Karma affords us the most
intricate, complex and detailed idea of reward for good, and punishment for
evil (even when called "the operation of natural law") possible to
the mind of man. In its entirety, and carried to its last refinement of
interpretation and analysis, it has a tendency to bewilder and terrify, for the
chance of escape from its entangling machinery seems so slight. But still, the
same authorities inform us that every soul will surmount these obstacles, and
everyone will Attain—so there is no need to be frightened, even if you accept
the interpretation of doctrine in its completeness.
But there are some
thinkers who carry this idea of retributive Karma to such an extreme that
they hold that every instance of physical pain, disease, deformity, poverty,
ill fortune, etc., that we see among people, is the inevitable result of some
moral wrong or crime committed by that person in some past life, and that
therefore every instance of poverty, want or physical suffering is the just
result of some moral offense. Some of the extremists have gone so far as to
hesitate at relieving poverty, physical pain and suffering in others, lest by
so doing they might possibly be "interfering with Karma"—as if any great
Law could be "interfered with." While we, generally, have refrained
from insisting upon our personal preference of interpretation in this work, we
cannot refrain from so doing in this instance. We consider that such an
interpretation of the Law of Karma is forced and unnatural, and results from
the seeming natural tendency of the human mind to build up devils for
itself—and hells of one kind or another. Robbed of their Devil, many people
would attribute to their God certain devilish qualities, in order that they may
not be robbed of the satisfaction of smugly thinking of the "just
punishment" of others. And, if they have also discarded the idea of a
Personal God, their demand for a Devil causes them to attribute certain
devilish qualities to Natural Law. They are bound to find their Devil
somewhere—the primitive demand for the Vengeful Spirit must manifest itself in
one form or another.
These people confound
the action of Cause and Effect on the Material and Physical Plane, with Cause
and Effect on the Spiritual Plane, whereas all true occultists teach that the
Cause operating on one plane manifests effects upon the same plane. In this
connection, we would call your attention to the instance in the New Testament
(John IX., 2), in which Jesus was asked regarding the cause of the affliction
of the man who was BORN BLIND. "And his disciples asked him, saying,
'Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?'"
The question being asked in order that Jesus might determine between the two prevailing
theories: (1) That the blindness was caused according to the operation of
the law of Moses, which held that the sins of the parents were visited on the
children unto the third and fourth generation; or (2) that it was caused
according to the Law of Karma, along the lines of reincarnation, and because of
some sin which the man had committed in some past incarnation (for no other
interpretation of the passage is possible, and it shows the prevalence of the
idea of Reincarnation among the people of that time). But Jesus promptly
brushed away these two crude, primitive conceptions and interpretations, and in
the light of his superior spiritual knowledge answered: "Neither hath this
man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be manifest in
him," the explanation of the term "the works of God" being that
Jesus meant thereby the operation of the Laws of Nature imposed by
God—something above punishment for "sins," and which operated
according to invariable physical laws and which affected the just and the
unjust alike, just as do any natural laws. It is now known that
many infants are rendered blind by negligence of certain precautions at
birth—this may have been a case of that kind. We consider any attempt to
attribute physical infirmities to "sin" unconnected with the physical
trouble to be a reversion to primitive theological dogmas, and smacking
strongly of the "devil idea" of theology, of which we have spoken.
And Poverty results from economic conditions, and not as punishment for
"Sin." Nor is Wealth the reward of Virtue—far from it.
But before leaving
this phase of the subject we would like to say that many careful thinkers have
been able to discern certain spiritual benefits that have arisen from physical
suffering, or poverty, and that the sufferers often manifest a high degree of
spiritual development and growth, seemingly by reason of their pain. Not only
this, but the divine faculties of pity, help, and true sympathy, are brought
out in others, by reason thereof. We think that this view of the matter is far
more along the lines of true spirituality than that of want and disease as
"the punishment of sins committed in past lives." Even the human
idea of Justice revolts at this kind of "punishment," and, in fact,
the highest human justice and human law eliminates the idea of
"punishment" altogether, so far as reprisal or revenge is concerned,
the penalty being regarded merely as a deterrent of others, and a warning to
the criminal against further infractions of the law, and as a reformatory
agent—this at least is the theory of Human Law—no matter how imperfectly it
works out in practice—and we cannot think of Divine Law being less just and
equitable, less merciful and loving. The "eye for eye, tooth for
tooth" conception of human justice has been out-lived by the race in its
evolution.
After considering the
above mentioned extreme ideas of "punishments," through the Law of
Karma, we ask you to consider the following lines written by a writer having
great insight, and published in a leading magazine several years ago. The idea
of "The Kindergarten of God" therein expressed, we think, is far
nearer in accordance with the highest Occult Teachings, than the other idea of
"Divine Wrath" and punishment for sin, along the lines of a
misinterpretation of the Law of Karma, worthy of the worshipers of some ancient
Devil-God. Read this little quotation carefully, and then determine which of
the two views seems to fit in better with your highest spiritual conceptions:
"A boy went to
school. He was very little. All that he knew he had drawn in with his mother's
milk. His teacher (who was God) placed him in the lowest class, and gave him
these lessons to learn: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt do no hurt to any
living thing. Thou shalt not steal. So the man did not kill; but he was cruel,
and he stole. At the end of the day (when his beard was gray—when the night was
come), his teacher (who was God) said: Thou hast learned not to kill. But the
other lessons thou hast not learned. Come back tomorrow.
"On the morrow
he came back, a little boy. And his teacher (who was God) put him in a class a
little higher, and gave him these lessons to learn: Thou shalt do no hurt
to any living thing. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not cheat. So the man did
no hurt to any living thing; but he stole and he cheated. And at the end of the
day (when his beard was gray—when the night was come), his teacher (who was
God) said: Thou hast learned to be merciful. But the other lessons thou hast
not learned. Come back tomorrow.
"Again, on the
morrow, he came back, a little boy. And his teacher (who was God) put him in a
class yet a little higher, and gave him these lessons to learn: Thou shalt not
steal. Thou shalt not cheat. Thou shalt not covet. So the man did not steal;
but he cheated, and he coveted. And at the end of the day (when his beard was
gray—when the night was come), his teacher (who was God) said: Thou hast
learned not to steal. But the other lessons thou hast not learned. Come back,
my child, tomorrow.
"This is what I
have read in the faces of men and women, in the book of the world, and in the
scroll of the heavens, which is writ with stars."—Berry Benson, in
The Century Magazine, May, 1894.
But there is still
another view of Karma held by some Western thinkers, who received it from the
Greek mystics and occultists, who in turn are thought to have received it from
ancient Egypt. These people hold that the Law of Karma has naught to do with
Man's theories of ethics, or religious dogmas or creeds, but has as the basis
of its operations only Universal and Cosmic Principles of Action, applicable to
the atom as well as Man—to the beings above Man as well. And that these
universal principles of action have to do with the evolution of all things in
Nature, according to well established laws. And that the evolving soul is
continually striving to find the path along the lines of evolution, being urged
to by the unfolding spirit within it—and that that "path" is always
along the lines of least spiritual friction, and therefore along the lines of
the least ultimate spiritual pain. And that, accordingly, Spiritual Pain is an
indication to the evolving thing that it is on the wrong path, and that it
must find a better way onward—which message it heeds by reason of the pain, and
accordingly seeks out for itself a better way, and one that will bring less
spiritual pain and greater ultimate spiritual satisfaction.
This teaching holds
that all material things are a source of more or less pain to the growing and
evolving soul, which tends to urge it along the line of the least spiritual
resistence—the least spiritual friction. It may be that the soul does not
recognize the direction of the urge, and insist in tasting this material
pleasure (so-thought) and then that—only to find that neither satisfy—that both
are Dead Sea Fruit—that both have the thorn attached to the flower—that all
bring pain, satiety and disgust—the consequence being that the tired and
wearied soul, when rested by the Lethal slumber, and then re-born has a horror
and distaste for the things which disgusted it in its previous life, and is
therefore urged toward opposite things. If the soul has not been satiated—has
not yet been pricked by the hidden thorn—it wishes to go on further in the
dream of material pleasure, and so it does, until it learns its lesson.
Finally, perceiving the folly and worthlessness of materiality, it emerges from
its cocoon and, spreading out its newly found wings, takes its flight for
higher planes of action and being—and so on, and on, and on, forever.
Under this view
people are not punished "for" their sins, but "by" them—and
"Sin" is seen to be merely a "mistake," not a crime. And
Pain arises not as a punishment for something done wrongly, but as a warning
sign of "hands off"; and consequently Pain is something by which we
may mount to higher things—to Something Better—and not a punishment. And this
idea holds, also, that on the physical plane physical law governs, and physical
effects follow physical causes; likewise on the mental plane; likewise on the
Spiritual Plane. And, therefore, it is absurd to suppose that one suffers
physical pain as a punishment for some moral offense committed on another
plane. On the contrary, however, this idea holds that from the physical
pain which was occasioned by the operation of physical law alone one may
develop higher spiritual states by reason of a better understanding of the
nature of pain in oneself and others. And this idea refuses to recognize
material pleasures or profits as a reward for spiritual or moral actions.
On the whole this
last mentioned conception of Karma refuses to use the terms "reward and
punishment," or even to entertain those ideas, but instead sees in
everything the working out of a great Cosmic Plan whereby everything rises from
lower to higher, and still higher. To it Karma is but one phase of the great
LAW operating in all planes and forms of Life and the Universe. To it the idea
that "THE UNIVERSE IS GOVERNED BY LAW" is an axiom. And while to it
ULTIMATE JUSTICE is also axiomic, it sees not in the operation of penalties and
reward—merits and demerits—the proof of that Ultimate Justice; it looks for it
and finds it in the conception and realizing that ALL WORKS FOR
GOOD—that Everything is tending upward—that everything is justified and
just, because the END is ABSOLUTE GOOD, and that every tiny working of the
great cosmic machinery is turning in the right direction and to that end.
Consequently, each of us is just where he should be at the present time—and our
condition is exactly the very best to bring us to that Divine Consummation and
End. And to such thinkers, indeed, there is no Devil but Fear and Unfaith, and all
other devils are illusions, whether they be called Beelzebub, Mortal-Mind, or
Karma, if they produce Fear and Unfaith in the All-Good. And such thinkers feel
that the way to live according to the Higher Light, and without fear of a
Malevolent Karma, is to feel one's relationship with the Universal Good, and
then to "Live One Day at a time—Doing the Best you Know How—and Be
Kind"—knowing that in the All-Good you live and move and have your being,
and that outside of that All-Good you cannot stray, for there is no
outside—knowing that THAT which brought you Here will be with you There—that
Death is but a phase of Life—and above all that THERE IS NOTHING TO BE
AFRAID OF—and that ALL IS WELL with God; with the Universe; and with YOU!
END OF THIS BOOK.
Comments
Post a Comment