Re: Does KARMA play favorites?
Dec 15, 1998 11:11 PM
>Supposing that Karma was one of the agents of "God ?"
I guess I am stuck on WHY "God" needs "agents." If "God" is
the need for "agents" seems unnecessary. I have often heard
prayer ask for "God" to 'use' them to further "God's" work - why
"God" do this for his/her/it's self? I mean, what if every
REFUSED to do "God's" work - what would "God" do then?
>everyone assume that "God" is fair and just to everyone ?
Should we assume? Probably, but I don't think everyone does nor
necessarily is - to be honest, I'm not even sure "God" exists.
>Forgiveness and Mercy in my way of thinking ought to be
>distributed fairly, or "God" plays favorites. On what basis
>would "God" do that ?
If "God" is omniscient, then "God" can certainly figure out a way
forgive, forget, and change a person without causing harm to
>And by the way, do we have one "God" or
>many "Gods" each described and visualized in the way any devotee
>of any faith thinks God is ?
I am sure that every human has a different conception of the
"God." So there can both be many "Gods" and still just one
"God." Or, if
"God" is simply the manifestation of humans, then there are many
not only one "God."
>If we invoke the aspect of mercy and/or forgiveness, then what
>happens to the victims if something has been done to hurt them ?
>How does that get adjusted ? Who will do the
Well, again, if "God" is omnipotent and omniscient, then "God"
certainly do the adjusting in the proper way. And, this being
so, I fail
to see why "God" needs a tool such as karma to do it.
>I suppose that the evil-doer ought to be active in
>making restitution ?
Well, GENUINE and SINCERE restitution usually comes AFTER a
person has had
a change of heart. It follows that a person who has had a change
brought on by "God," would then naturally set out to heal and
Forcing someone via suffering or negative karma is not
to me, to turn a heart - kindness begets kindness, love begets
love. If we
want someone to learn non-violence, we don't whack them on the
head with a
hammer every time they whack someone on the head with a hammer.
teaches nothing and merely instills fear.
>Supposing again, that everyone has a sense of right and wrong
>which is innate to them, so that they know without doubt what is
>a good act or a bad one, why would they "fear" retribution ?
I can suppose it, Dallas, but I do not honestly believe that
understands what is right or wrong. Have there not been many
times in your
life where you were not sure what action was right to take? I
have - and when I thought I had done the right thing, it turned
out to be
the wrong thing.
DALLAS: You are right and that has been my experience also. But
then, why should that make me think that the UNIVERSE is chaotic
and purposeless ?
I do not believe that one should not suffer
due to ignorance. Knowing what is right and doing wrong is
when one DOES NOT know - why should one suffer retribution,
lifetimes apart from the action and the retribution?
>is going to be fear because of uncertainty, then would the wiser
>decision be to avoid doing harm to others ?
If one is uncertain, how will they know how to "avoid doing harm
others?" In cases of uncertainty, inaction is often not an
have to make a choice - what if we choose wrongly? We are not
DALLAS: Curiously enough if we give ourselves the time to
honestly work out the pros and the cons we will probably find
that the best way to act is the way in which we would recommend
such to some stranger. Impersonality. Is that possible ? But
generally we are so very impatient.
>If "God" has granted all his children knowledge and wisdom, then
>how does he set about getting them to regulate themselves ( not
>regulating one-another ? ).
Well, if "God" has granted all his/her/its children knowledge and
why all the human and animal suffering? This seems to suggest
people who do wrong are doing it purposely because they really
knowledge of right and wrong and are simply blowing it off. The
evidence seems to be against this conclusion.
And, again, if we had knowledge and wisdom from the start, why
separate from "God" in the first place? Did we all say "Gee,
let's all go
down and suffer?" I'm not being sarcastic here, honest. It just
make sense. If being with "God" was so wonderful, why did we
And why should our goal be to return there?
DALLAS: again, excellent questions. Supposing that we have at
our core a portion of the "God essence" (as "god" is held to be
omnipresent) then the answer would be that our independence is
"God-given" or "God-derived."
You might consider that each man-mind has to KNOW THE LAWS AND
THE SITUATION FOR HIM/HERSELF. This independence can make us
"head-strong," and drive us to errors.
Enter the general fairness of all. How to readjust when we are
the disturbing element ?
KARMA is that readjusting agent, and alike joined to the
"God-Power" of the HOLE and to the "God-essence" in each human.
What aspect, then, of ourselves is the one that makes errors ?
>I know that I am ultimately responsible for what I do and
>So I have to take responsibility and not live in hope that
>somehow what evil I might do will be forgiven - that does not
>sound too sure to me.
Dallas, to be honest, it sounds like you are postulating the
philosophy that you do good and refrain from evil because you
will not be forgiven - rather, than doing good simply FOR ITS OWN
DALLAS: If doing anything out of simple fear of consequences
worked, then the whole world, being fearful of God's laws and
powers would do not wrong. Since wrong is done, why ? I would
rather understand than fear. It is said that fear arises from
ignorance, so I, for one study and seek to know.
understand that, but it kind of backs up my point that the
concept of karma
is used similiarly to the concept of heaven and hell.
>When we are
>helpful then should we not be benefited by "God" in response to
>our efforts in that direction ? If so, then how would that be
We are benefited, not by "God," but by the satisfaction and
Pleasure experienced in doing good. If there were no "God,"
No possibility of "benefit" given by God, would you still be
and good? If so, why?
And I do appreciate your kind response to my e-mail. I felt you
speaking to me person to person, instead of person/book to
Dear Kym: I never anted to seem either impersonal or
uninterested. I hope what I write above is useful and helpful to
Best wishes, and to you and your family for 1999
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application