Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tl00066)

Raymond wrote:

> So, when I read from you Kym, on the physical actions of these
>people to the jews etc. etc. I can't help thinking, "does this person
>really understand what personal Karma really is ? or are most of
>the people who speak of personal Karma, like yourself and look at
>what others do in the physical, but neglect to consider the real
>personal Karma of thought. (Not personal Kym, just an example)

Actually, Raymond, I believe you may be referring to Christine here as she
was the one who brought up the subject of the Holocaust and her distress
over the injustice in the world (and I empathize as I often think and feel
the same way).  Maybe, though, you are talking about another reference - an
answer I gave her or something?  If so, I'm not quite clear on what you are
saying as I believe my e-mails on this topic agree with you more than
disagree.  No? Yes?

But as far as what you said about wondering if people understand "what
personal karma really is" - well, I don't think anyone does.  There
actually is no proof of karma and, as I stated before, the concept doesn't
make logical sense. And since all action comes from thought (but not
necessarily wisdom), it follows that the karma being discussed would
include thought.  I do think Christine and others (including myself) have
not forgotten thought.  But the others, and you, can correct me if I am
wrong (which is rare).

> Therefore, if we are to negate our personal Karma, then we must
>forget our actions, and concentrate our thoughts on higher things. If
>the lower spiritually evolved individuals wish to do unto others, then
>let them evolve from that point,

Disagree.  I cannot just let other do unto others as they so wish -
regardless of their so-called "spiritually evolved" status.  If I see
someone who is acting out of ignorance and doing cruel deeds, I am not
going to chalk it up as simply a 'learning experience' and take a hands-off
stance.

How are we supposed to "forget our actions?"  What do you mean?

> Just my thoughts, I just felt like sharing them. I do thank you all
>for being here, it is interesting to see so many of you who really
>care. I sit here next to my cross, waiting for the nailers.

Interesting how you equate yourself with Jesus here - my grandmother (god
rest her saintly soul) always did this, too.  However, let me hammer away.
It sounds like you are taking just the position that I find most repugnant
regarding those who endorse the Theosophical theory of karma.  Of course,
thoughts are the root of everything - but if one's thoughts make them
inactive and unresponsive to the world and the people in it, then what is
the point?  What good is Wisdom if it is not used ACTIVELY (meaning
physically) to aid others?

Also, just because one responds to your e-mail thoughts "negatively" (as
you mentioned in one of your paragraphs), does not mean that the person is
going to have "negative" karma to deal with.  If your thoughts, or my
thoughts, are wrong and a person points to the errors in the thinking, then
the person is, in my opinion, thinking or acting rightly.  Now, if someone
were to, like, call one a "butthead," hmmm, maybe that wouldn't be so
right.  But again, just because someone doesn't like what someone has to
say doesn't mean they are automatically heaping on "negative" karma.  Geez,
if that's so, there's alot of people who leave my presence with a megaton
of "negative" karma to have to work off (and they call me far more scary
things than "butthead").

You also wrote "If you were to respond to my email in a responsible
intelligent
manner or not, it would only be the reaction to the personal Karma
you have already committed."

Again, I must disagree.  I may be responding to you in a particular way due
ONLY to what you had to say.  Your statement appears to negate people - it
allows you to chalk them up as merely dealing with some past troubles,
instead of sincerely and honestly responding to what you have to say (also,
this kind of reasoning can be used AGAINST you and what you have to say!).

Of course, one's personality will frame how one puts and sees things, but
this does not mean that WHAT one says is not valid.  And who is to say what
"type" of personality is the most "responsible" and "intelligent?"  There
are many responsible and intelligent people who have stood up and told
others to 'stick it.' And there are many polite and refined folks who are
able to spew poison all over the place - regardless of how responsible and
intelligent they appear.  Being "responsible" or "intelligent" is no
indicator of what is in one's heart and no indication of possession, or
lack of, Wisdom.  After all, in today's society Jesus and Buddha would be
considered hobos. . .I doubt either of them could hold down a job, and
Jesus. . . well. . .he had that famous temper tantrum at the temple and,
thinking way back, wasn't one of HPB's fave rave words "fool?"

Now, if I have completely misunderstood the points of your e-mail, please
correct me.  It is only right.  I really am trying to be a better person,
you know. . ..

Kym

----------------------------------------------------------------------