Theos-Talk Archives (August 1994 Message tl00175)

Bill wrote:
> Is this Leadbeater's theory of karma? Did he believe that karmic
> "dues" must be paid to some specific soul or monad? (My
> theosophical education may be showing its (very) rough and rusty
> edges here.  ;-) ) Or is this "idea" a general idea without a
> specific person-of-origin?

    Bill,

I have an "idea" to share along this line.  I can't say exactly
how I got this idea other than from reading books on theosohpy,
including CWL's.  It is that karma comes in more than one
variety.

Yes, there is personal karma.  I think HPB argued it was only
just that we right our wrongs rather than some appointed
scapegoat (Jesus).  Another I have heard of is group karma, which
is the result of being members of different groups acting in
concert, giving our support to different governments,
organizations, countries, etc.

I have also heard tell of karma--which by the way I understand to
be a very impartial law of nature working to restore the perfect
harmony which existed in the lake of the universe before we all
started splashing around in it--which is delayed.  Our cosmic
credit balance.  How do you feel about credit?

> One of the belief systems that I subscribe to (based on my
> theosophical and other studies), one that I am trying to turn
> into a known for myself, is that karma is a personal thing with
> few (if any) additional attachments.  To me karma is related to
> the idea that we incarnate into the earth life system to learn
> one or more lessons.  These lessons are personal lessons that are
> intended to promote our personal growth.  The personal growth is
> intended to be our gifts that we bring when we return to the
> source.
>
> I wasn't aware (without my theosophical dictionary or glossary
> ;-) ) that my karma was *directly* tied to anyone else -- physi-
> cal, monadic, or otherwise.  Do I really have to have my "pals
> and loved ones (and enemies)" around me in my next life to learn
> my spiritual lessons?  Wouldn't it be just as beneficial if I in-
> carnated into *any* situation which has a good chance of provid-
> ing me the lessons I need to learn? ... regardless of which
> monads may or may not be incarnate at the same time?  I don't
> know.  I'm just asking.

I see your point and think you are probably right much can be
handled this way.  However, I also think love and hate are strong
ties which may need to be worked out on more "personal" level.
You seem to be arguing for more personal in one place, but more
universal here.  So maybe you can see the need for both.  Yes?

>BTW, the term " ... loved ones ... " that you used previously
>kinda' pressed ... well, maybe just touched on ... well, perhaps
>just brushed by ... one of my emotional buttons.  The context
>that it was used in reminded me of the term that a lot of new
>age-oriented romantics use when describing the feeling that they
>have finally found that one special person that they are supposed
>to spend the rest of eternity with: soul-mate.  I don't know what
>theosophy might have to say about the concept but the whole idea
>of a special *one* really rubs me the wrong way.  With 5.5 bil-
>lion souls or monads currently incarnate in this earth life sys-
>tem, the "idea" that there is one and *only one* other for me to
>spend eternity with is just plain silly.  And the "idea," for
>some unknown reason, tends to start to make me angry.  Undoubt-
>ably this is some karmic issue that *I* have to deal with.
>

I am with you all the way on this one.  I remember Dora Kunz once
saying that this idea of soulmates was nonsense to her, as was
well as the idea of guardian angels.  I think she was more of a
universalist on this one and me too.

> > ... (If you
> > are really unsettled about Leadbeater ...
>
>   Personally, I am not "unsettled" about Leadbeater at all.  I
>haven't read a lot of his work -- just one or two things -- but I
>have nothing in particular against him.  In fact, all of the dia-
>log back and forth on the issue came as a bit of a surprise to
>me.  I didn't know that there were people in the TS or elsewhere
>that had such strong feelings on the issues.
>
>   The thing that I *am* trying to work over in my personal be-
>lief systems is the difference between Blavatsky's theories and
>teachings and those of Annie Besant.  Since Leadbeater was a con-
>temporary of Besant, I guess that crosses over to his theories as
>well.  I don't have all of the details that I would like to have
>but the differences are something that I have spent a little time
>mulling over on more than one occasion.  In particular (again),
>my special interest is in the theories of the bodies of man --
>their constitution, purpose, and usage.  And these two theosoph-
>ical notables seemed to have very different "ideas."
>
    How so. I don't see the big deal here. Both taught a septenary
constitution and ascribed certain functions to those seven bodies.
Wether you count from the top or the bottom or subdivide functions in
one place or another doesn't change the value and importance of
eithers "ideas".  Sometimes it seems to me we argue about the trees
and lose site of the beauty of the forest we are in and the path
through it which they both we trying desparetly to point out to us.

>
> Bill--
            Lewis
llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu