The Law of Karma (Hopefully last words)
The law of karma from this date (April 18 of 2021). Obviously I was taking a strong position here so I must have believed in what I was saying. I think that this is the last of the series. I haven't included many counter comments but this time I did include a post by Lee Yue Heng, since I think it formed a very nice conclusion, a bookend to this "kerfuffle."
In fact it is true that sympathy for victims is a necessary part of the overall picture that perhaps I did not give enough emphasis to, and it is especially true when speaking to victims with inadequate capacity for understanding. The world is a place of cheaters and cheated; one requires the other. Beginners on the path are easily deceived and may have to go through the process of being deceived many times.
One year ago
I think that many devotees, especially the children and women who have been abused and the others who support them, do not believe in the law of karma. So let's think about it a bit.
In the West, those who follow Christian and secular dominated belief systems are against belief in karma because it puts the responsibility for one's own suffering on oneself. The devotees have been influenced by this dominant ethos in the world today. How can an innocent child or innocent woman have any blame for the suffering that is imposed on them? But if they are innocent, then you have to find someone else to blame, whether a human agent or ultimately God, for the suffering in the world.
Suffering is bestowed by the material nature in response to deeds performed in this life or, prārabdha karma, in previous ones. Material nature might bring suffering in the form of storms and floods (ādhidaivika) or from one's own mind and body (ādhyātmika), or from other persons (ādhibhautika). Persons who act as agents of a person's suffering are only that, instruments of a the laws of material nature.
If you say that someone is suffering appropriately on account of his own sins, I agree: that is his karma. A devotee, however, takes the form of Krishna's mercy in the form of negative experiences in the world. So it looks like karma, but it serves the purpose of awakening the intelligence of the devotee who is still governed by ignorance. In other words, the purpose of Krishna's intervention is to show his mercy by revealing the dangers of ignorance.
The Bhāgavatam verse is known to everyone, but who believes or follows or practices?
tat te’nukampāṁ susamīkṣamāṇo
bhuñjāna evātma-kṛtaṁ vipākam
hṛd-vāg-vapurbhir vidadhan namas te
jīveta yo mukti-pade sa dāya-bhāk
My dear Lord, one who goes through life in the constant expectation of receiving your causeless mercy, patiently undergoing the reactions to his past deeds, all the while offering you obeisance with his heart, words, and body, is ready to inherit a place amongst the liberated. (10.14.6)
The relevant words here are ātma-kṛtaṁ vipākam. The karma system is Krishna's grace for everyone. My friends, you want to break out of this cycle.
So PS only forms one side of the karma cycle, the one side of the coin that you choose to see. If he does not correct the situation, in his next life, he will no doubt undergo the opposite side of the equation. In other words, he will have to suffer as a reward for his own sin.
But the victims are merely the other side of that same equation. They are at another spot on the same cycle. Sometimes we are above the surface and sometimes below, but everyone is on the karmic cycle. If we are happy at his suffering, then we are simply continuing the cycle.
That is what our Hindu belief tells us. Secularists and Christians don't believe this. They believe that we have no previous lifetimes and that therefore suffering is either the fault of some external force or is completely random and meaningless. But if you accept the premise of the law of karma and rebirth, then by arthāpatti reasoning [Devadatt is fat. He does not eat in the day. Therefore since we know that becoming fat is the result of eating, he must be doing so at night.] we are left with no choice but to take responsibility for our own happiness and distress.
What Jordan Peterson did for me was to confirm the importance of personal responsibility. It sounds cruel to tell a suffering victim of any kind that they are suffering on account of something they themselves may have done. Without a belief in previous lives, of course, it makes no sense. But without a belief in previous lives or karma, suffering has no meaning. Unless we are willing to realize that we are engaged in an eternal dance of papa-punya, enjoyment and suffering, an eternal cycle of suffering in which we are sometimes the agents of another person's suffering or someone's victim, we are condemned to remain in it.
There is no material solution. P is in the hands of God and those who are willing to show him kindness still. The victims are also in the hands of God and those willing to show them kindness. The two attitudes are NOT opposed because a devotee is merciful to everyone. He knows the real status of the world and the causes of suffering.
The solution is knowledge, not sentiment. And certainly not revenge.
A devotee might appropriate to himself the agency for justice. Nothing wrong with that, but it is not the final solution. It is just another phase of the same cycle, mainly because the purity required to be an agent of justice is very hard to acquire. It is all in the emotional entanglement.
Jai Sri Radhe.
The person who hits is guilty. He is creating new karma. The person who is hit is receiving the results of old karma and getting rid of it. Doesn't everyone know this?
On a deeper level, both are continuing their karmic bondage inasmuch as they are attached to the process of thinking that the karma is real and permanent.
To get out of bondage, everyone must break out of the cycle. He hits me so I hit him out of revenge. He hits me back and on we go on our merry way without end.
As far as I am concerned whatever happens to P now is the result of his own actions. Karma. I have no control over those who want retribution. Go for it.
But Krishna says I forgive and will "quickly" put him on the righteous path. Quickly might mean several lifetimes, in fact. Do you think he can meditate on Krishna in the current circumstances? He has ruined himself and reform and salvation will be a hard thing for him, but not impossible. And I don't see why I should not pray for his reform and salvation.
That is the transcendental situation. Even a little movement on this path is eternal. But certainly P has gotten slowed down. So go ahead everyone, hate on him. That is your choice and I am not even telling you to forgive him for HIS sake. I am saying that forgiveness is necessary for YOUR sake.
And I don't say this to the victims because I want to punish them further.
Cheaters find the cheated. Consciously or unconsciously there are samskaras that dictate our behavior. And here is the thing, Niscala, the law of karma is impersonal for the karmi but not for the devotee. This means that all these devotee victims are being taught lessons by Krishna.
Perhaps you could tell the ones who think "how could I make a pure devotee fall down" that they need to get a better grip on reality. That is not at all what I mean by bringing up karma.
Though I really don't like to perpetuate this discussion, it is obviously something that hit a nerve and has resulted in much reaction.
One thing I have been noticing is that most of the people who oppose my interpretation of karma are women, some of whom I know personally to have been directly influenced by modern feminism.
In fact it is true that sympathy for victims is a necessary part of the overall picture that perhaps I did not give enough emphasis to, and it is especially true when speaking to victims with inadequate capacity for understanding. The world is a place of cheaters and cheated; one requires the other. Beginners on the path are easily deceived and may have to go through the process of being deceived many times.
 |
| From the internet, don't know where it originated. |
One year ago
I think that many devotees, especially the children and women who have been abused and the others who support them, do not believe in the law of karma. So let's think about it a bit.
In the West, those who follow Christian and secular dominated belief systems are against belief in karma because it puts the responsibility for one's own suffering on oneself. The devotees have been influenced by this dominant ethos in the world today. How can an innocent child or innocent woman have any blame for the suffering that is imposed on them? But if they are innocent, then you have to find someone else to blame, whether a human agent or ultimately God, for the suffering in the world.
Suffering is bestowed by the material nature in response to deeds performed in this life or, prārabdha karma, in previous ones. Material nature might bring suffering in the form of storms and floods (ādhidaivika) or from one's own mind and body (ādhyātmika), or from other persons (ādhibhautika). Persons who act as agents of a person's suffering are only that, instruments of a the laws of material nature.
If you say that someone is suffering appropriately on account of his own sins, I agree: that is his karma. A devotee, however, takes the form of Krishna's mercy in the form of negative experiences in the world. So it looks like karma, but it serves the purpose of awakening the intelligence of the devotee who is still governed by ignorance. In other words, the purpose of Krishna's intervention is to show his mercy by revealing the dangers of ignorance.
The Bhāgavatam verse is known to everyone, but who believes or follows or practices?
tat te’nukampāṁ susamīkṣamāṇo
bhuñjāna evātma-kṛtaṁ vipākam
hṛd-vāg-vapurbhir vidadhan namas te
jīveta yo mukti-pade sa dāya-bhāk
My dear Lord, one who goes through life in the constant expectation of receiving your causeless mercy, patiently undergoing the reactions to his past deeds, all the while offering you obeisance with his heart, words, and body, is ready to inherit a place amongst the liberated. (10.14.6)
The relevant words here are ātma-kṛtaṁ vipākam. The karma system is Krishna's grace for everyone. My friends, you want to break out of this cycle.
So PS only forms one side of the karma cycle, the one side of the coin that you choose to see. If he does not correct the situation, in his next life, he will no doubt undergo the opposite side of the equation. In other words, he will have to suffer as a reward for his own sin.
But the victims are merely the other side of that same equation. They are at another spot on the same cycle. Sometimes we are above the surface and sometimes below, but everyone is on the karmic cycle. If we are happy at his suffering, then we are simply continuing the cycle.
That is what our Hindu belief tells us. Secularists and Christians don't believe this. They believe that we have no previous lifetimes and that therefore suffering is either the fault of some external force or is completely random and meaningless. But if you accept the premise of the law of karma and rebirth, then by arthāpatti reasoning [Devadatt is fat. He does not eat in the day. Therefore since we know that becoming fat is the result of eating, he must be doing so at night.] we are left with no choice but to take responsibility for our own happiness and distress.
What Jordan Peterson did for me was to confirm the importance of personal responsibility. It sounds cruel to tell a suffering victim of any kind that they are suffering on account of something they themselves may have done. Without a belief in previous lives, of course, it makes no sense. But without a belief in previous lives or karma, suffering has no meaning. Unless we are willing to realize that we are engaged in an eternal dance of papa-punya, enjoyment and suffering, an eternal cycle of suffering in which we are sometimes the agents of another person's suffering or someone's victim, we are condemned to remain in it.
There is no material solution. P is in the hands of God and those who are willing to show him kindness still. The victims are also in the hands of God and those willing to show them kindness. The two attitudes are NOT opposed because a devotee is merciful to everyone. He knows the real status of the world and the causes of suffering.
The solution is knowledge, not sentiment. And certainly not revenge.
A devotee might appropriate to himself the agency for justice. Nothing wrong with that, but it is not the final solution. It is just another phase of the same cycle, mainly because the purity required to be an agent of justice is very hard to acquire. It is all in the emotional entanglement.
Jai Sri Radhe.
The person who hits is guilty. He is creating new karma. The person who is hit is receiving the results of old karma and getting rid of it. Doesn't everyone know this?
On a deeper level, both are continuing their karmic bondage inasmuch as they are attached to the process of thinking that the karma is real and permanent.
To get out of bondage, everyone must break out of the cycle. He hits me so I hit him out of revenge. He hits me back and on we go on our merry way without end.
As far as I am concerned whatever happens to P now is the result of his own actions. Karma. I have no control over those who want retribution. Go for it.
But Krishna says I forgive and will "quickly" put him on the righteous path. Quickly might mean several lifetimes, in fact. Do you think he can meditate on Krishna in the current circumstances? He has ruined himself and reform and salvation will be a hard thing for him, but not impossible. And I don't see why I should not pray for his reform and salvation.
That is the transcendental situation. Even a little movement on this path is eternal. But certainly P has gotten slowed down. So go ahead everyone, hate on him. That is your choice and I am not even telling you to forgive him for HIS sake. I am saying that forgiveness is necessary for YOUR sake.
And I don't say this to the victims because I want to punish them further.
Cheaters find the cheated. Consciously or unconsciously there are samskaras that dictate our behavior. And here is the thing, Niscala, the law of karma is impersonal for the karmi but not for the devotee. This means that all these devotee victims are being taught lessons by Krishna.
Perhaps you could tell the ones who think "how could I make a pure devotee fall down" that they need to get a better grip on reality. That is not at all what I mean by bringing up karma.
Though I really don't like to perpetuate this discussion, it is obviously something that hit a nerve and has resulted in much reaction.
One thing I have been noticing is that most of the people who oppose my interpretation of karma are women, some of whom I know personally to have been directly influenced by modern feminism.
Actually, what woman has not been influenced by modern feminism?
Feminists in general subscribe to the school of thought that holds that words are only used to justify the appropriation and retention of power over others. This applies across the board to philosophy, religion and the arts, but especially religion.
So the scriptures that say, for instance, that birth in a woman's body is a result of some karmic flaw, are considered to be false and nothing other than instruments for men's abuse and exploitation of women.
If that is the case, then these people don't really belong in Krishna bhakti because they will never have the humility to take responsibility for their own suffering, which is a necessary part of spiritual progress.
This does not mean that the truth cannot be used for nefarious purposes, but the ability of humans to create and enforce laws that would fairly punish everyone appropriately for their crimes, whatever they are, lies outside human capacity.
Oh, well maybe China's mass surveillance state will achieve it. Five demerits for jaywalking, no cheesecake for you!!! I look forward to that.
Lee Yue Heng
As a Buddhist (and therefore an outsider to Gaudiya Vaishnavism), I read your exposition on karma. It can be described as “unskillful”.
The Buddha taught that there must be four criteria for “Right Speech”. It must be 1) true, 2) timely 3) beneficial and 4) loving in tone.
Your comments on your understanding of karma were intellectually honest (you spoke your mind), but you came off as condescending and even cruelly dismissive. I think what particularly rankled many women were your comments that most of them don’t accept the doctrine of karma.
I have long admired you from afar, Jagadananda Das, and as a Buddhist, I agree with the idea that we should also have compassion for those who commit atrocities. But seriously, you also need to have compassion on those who are outraged about the atrocities committed by your friend. Planting seeds of anger with ill-chosen words are not going to help anyone, including your friend and yourself.
Jagadananda Das: Lee Yue Heng, Point well taken. It was not intended, but as you intimate, a sign of my low level of realization. I reacted to negative responses to what I thought were perfectly reasonable statements which made me more concerned with arguments than emotions. We learn through our mistakes. Jai Sri Radhe.
If that is the case, then these people don't really belong in Krishna bhakti because they will never have the humility to take responsibility for their own suffering, which is a necessary part of spiritual progress.
This does not mean that the truth cannot be used for nefarious purposes, but the ability of humans to create and enforce laws that would fairly punish everyone appropriately for their crimes, whatever they are, lies outside human capacity.
Oh, well maybe China's mass surveillance state will achieve it. Five demerits for jaywalking, no cheesecake for you!!! I look forward to that.
Lee Yue Heng
As a Buddhist (and therefore an outsider to Gaudiya Vaishnavism), I read your exposition on karma. It can be described as “unskillful”.
The Buddha taught that there must be four criteria for “Right Speech”. It must be 1) true, 2) timely 3) beneficial and 4) loving in tone.
Your comments on your understanding of karma were intellectually honest (you spoke your mind), but you came off as condescending and even cruelly dismissive. I think what particularly rankled many women were your comments that most of them don’t accept the doctrine of karma.
I have long admired you from afar, Jagadananda Das, and as a Buddhist, I agree with the idea that we should also have compassion for those who commit atrocities. But seriously, you also need to have compassion on those who are outraged about the atrocities committed by your friend. Planting seeds of anger with ill-chosen words are not going to help anyone, including your friend and yourself.
Jagadananda Das: Lee Yue Heng, Point well taken. It was not intended, but as you intimate, a sign of my low level of realization. I reacted to negative responses to what I thought were perfectly reasonable statements which made me more concerned with arguments than emotions. We learn through our mistakes. Jai Sri Radhe.
If you wonder whether Prabhupada was right to call most of
humanity foolish, then just ask yourself, "What is a pundit in the context
of the media?"
But to defend Prabhupada, he says, "A Vaishnava always
thinks he is a fool." Assuming that he considers himself to be a
Vaishnava, that means that he considers himself to be a fool, or at least that
a fundamental awareness of his existential ignorance and absorption in ego-mind
makes him incomplete as a Vaishnava.
No one likes to be called a fool. But if we accept that this
is indeed our essential existential fact in the world of phenomena and is
general to all, then we can start to make use of it.
In other words, knowing you are a fool should be accepted as a base line for all functioning. This will lead to detachment, freedom from fear, and the capacity to love.
12 years ago
Reading Naipaul's India: A Wounded Civilization and feeling "sour and somewhat below par" (p. 109).
13 years ago (Rishikesh)
The hot season. Sitting on a cold tile floor in front of Giridhari wearing just a kaupin, chanting japa. Ah, nostalgia for the babaji days. Off to Radha-rasa-sudha-nidhi reading. The highlight of my day. Will be posting an excerpt soon.
Comments