[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Karma: law?

Dec 28, 1996 11:17 AM
by John Straughn

Tom Robertson writes:
>At 02:41 PM 12/26/96 +0000, John Straughn <> wrote:
>>Michael writes:
>>>Yes, I quite agree being subject to collective Karma
>Collective karma relates to individual karma in the same way that the
>results of a coin flip relate to the probability of the coin flip.
>Collective karma tends to eventually even out for all individuals.

Even out how?  As in good experiences eventually happen the same number of
times as bad?  If there is such a thing as collective karma (and I'm sure
there is) wouldn't it be impoosible for it to be balanced out?  Particularly
after all of the hatred in history?  All of the wars?  The attempted
genocides?  The famine?  How could it be evened out?

>>Just a hypothesis, a new, unresearched or thought-out idea:  Perhaps each
>>one of us has a "karmic meter" within us which reacts somewhat directly
>>with the karmic pool.  I.e. if your "karmic meter" leans toward the
>>negative, then you would be more likely to attract negative karma.  If it
>>leaned toward the positive, etc.
>That karma deals in probabilities and tendencies like this strikes me as
>much more likely than that it ties particular cirumstances to particular

To say that karma has any particulars is to say that karma itself is a self-
conscious entity.  Would you be willing to agree to such a notion?

>>The higher self (Atman/Buddhi/Manas?) may
>>punish you for your "sins".  Surely the higher self would know how karma
>>does it's work, and perhaps it can manipulate itself so that karma (good or
>>bad) would be attracted to it's manifestation - us.
>I have never understood why the "higher self" is referred to as both being a
>part of the individual and as acting on the individual.  If it knows
>something that I do not know, then it is not me.

Alright then, let me ask you a question.  What were you thinking about on July
29, 1986 and 11:37 am?
>>it is my understanding that there
>>are such involutors who, eventually, severe(sp?) their atmic tie with the
>>Absolute, and become lost souls.  (G. de Purucker)
>I do not see how it is possible for anything to be separate from something
>that is all-encompassing.

It is my understanding that the atman itself does not encompass all.  It is
the first manifestation from an absolute.  (I'm not sure if this is correct,
in fact, this particular statement which insinuates that there are more than
one absolute has confused me for quite some time.)  Bleh.  Before I make a
rebuttal regarding this subject please allow me to do some more research.

>>being self-conscious, we can choose to"descend" into matter, eventually
>ending up in
>>what the "masters" call the eighth sphere.  "Avichi Nirvana".  Those who
>>have reached A.N. lose their atmic link and become lost souls.  "Lost",
>>defined by them as "selfish and materialistic".  Therefore, "universally"
>How long do these lost souls stay that way, or are they annihilated without
>ever recovering?  I remember a phrase from "The Mahatma Letters" which said
>that some souls undergo misery and torment for a manvantara, but I cannot
>remember to whom it was referring.

Yes, these are the "lost souls" to which I am referring.  If they sink so low
that they no longer have any tie to the absolute, they have no hope of raising
themselves spiritually before the end of the manvantara.  However, after the
pralaya and the beginning of the next manvantara, they will be able to start
anew in their evolution.  So, they are not totally annihilated, but for the
remainder of the manvantara in which they became lost souls, they will
"undergo misery and torment".  I don't know how they are tortured, because
fortunately, I have never been there.

The Triaist

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application