Sep 19, 1997 02:38 AM
For Titus: you said (in Digest 1246): <... don't base your conclusions on the
useful-ness of the knowledge of karma and reincarnation on people who
misapply it. According to that logic, the religions of the world are totally
wrong because most people fail in their practice of it.> And I say: right
on, Titus, you're a man after my own heart! And why shouldn't you be? In
complete accordance with the "Perfect Universe" concept, you ARE my own heart
.. as is everyone else.
For Paul: who said <it sure as *hell* ain't perfect here now> I reply: au
contraire, Paul, the universe IS perfect here and now; it is only our
perception of it and conse-quently our reaction to it that is imperfect.
For Kym: who said <This reasoning, to me, seems a vicious circle. If it
"must" be that offences come, then somebody "has" to be the person by whom
the offense cometh!> I say: finish reading the verse, Kim. It reads: but woe
unto him by whom the offence cometh (Matthew 18:7 [NKJV]. Your name is Kym,
not "Somebody" ... and so I respectfully suggest that you be (insofar as it
is within your capability to be) the willing karmic agent only for events
that your own conscience tells you to deal with ... and leave everything else
to "Somebody." You also said: <To me, cold, rational thought would say that
Judas was/is as much responsible for "redeeming" the world as Jesus was/is.>
And I say: when I subject this particular issue to cold, rational thought I
reach precisely the same conclusion --- a fact that has not endeared me to
some of my more conservative Christian friends. You also asked: <so, does
that mean Hitler HAD to be [the karmic agent for the Holocaust] and, if so,
then why should Hitler be so hated?> I reply: no, he didn't HAVE to accept
karmic agency for manifestation of the Holocaust ... and that is precisely
why he is so hated. He made the mistake I just urged you not to make, i.e.
thinking he was "Somebody" (as in, "it's a dirty job but Somebody has to do
it") when he was actually just a man named Adolph Hitler. Let me put it this
way, Kym. Karma is a magnificent (and complex and vast) universal law. It
can (and will) always find "Somebody" whenever "Somebody" (or "Something") is
required. Thus there is never any need for Kym Smith or Adoph Hitler or any
other particular individual to "volunteer." Consequently, unless you are
reasonably certain of the appropriateness of whatever you are contemplating
doing, it may be better to let "Somebody" (else) do it. You also said: <...
if we can really say that we all get what we deserve, how can we then judge
those who are part of fulfilling the lessons of karma?> And I reply:
excellent question, Kym, and the answer is truly complex. But, if you'd like
the "simplified version," try Matthew 7:1 and 2 (NKJV). I sincerely hope
that someday as you continue to travel on The Path you will come to accept
the theory of karma ... at which time I shall be pleased to send you "a pound
of purple poo." Meanwhile, why not invest a little of your time reading "The
Good Book?" At your present level of understanding you may discover that it
is not as "challenging" as you once thought.
For Doss: Your comments (in Digest 1246) showed IMHO real insight ... as
For Chuck: to my way of thinking, karma, like gravity, manifests whenever
and in whatever way it can ... and, like gravity, it doesn't require anyone's
belief in order to do so. With respect to your view about "getting away with
it," I sincerely urge you not to rely too heavily on that idea. Everybody
makes mistakes ... and that includes Chuck the Heretic.
For Bart: The final sentence in your comments to Drpsionic says it all ...
and I hope Kym read it.
For Alan: your brief post was a little confusing. You suggest that you
don't believe in karma ... and then follow up immediately with the comment
that "there ain't no free lunch." IMHO that is the very essence of karma.
NAMASTE to all --- Dennis
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application