Dear Hari
I just want to ask a question about karma.
We heard and read many information about karma but still this isue is very unclear.
Since you are real mistical person and have a huge mistical expireanse i decided to ask you about this complicated isue.
Most important for me that you are telling not the info wich you read somewhere but from your personal experianse.
So many times when something happened we are saying that this is Karmic reaction.
Practiacally all the time.
But there are arising a question all the actions cannot be reactions some should be
the reason of reactions.
So how one can recognise wich actions is reactions wich is there reasons.?
And the second question is there are place for such a thing like "by chanse"?
Can somebody just suffer without karmic reasons?.
And who is controling all this karmic prosseses.?
And have animals karmic reactions?
karma
Re: karma
Gee, it is hard to answer a question that starts with ‘you are a real mystical person and have a huge mystical experience.’ Anything I say now will simply disappoint everyone. Please make these questions less intimidating and more realistic, ok? My personal experience with karma is exactly the same as everyone else’s.
Karma means consequence. An act is performed and a consequence arises. Cause and effect. Rather simple, actually. Everything has a cause. Every cause has an effect. If you say that the word effect is synonymous with reaction, then you could say that every cause has a reaction. I do not like to use the word reaction because its usage tends to amplify something negative, as in “bad reactions that are sinful create suffering.” Please listen to my lecture, “Why good things happen to bad people,” for more about my views on good and bad in this realm of variables.
Every act has a consequence. We do things all the time. We constantly create consequences. Every creature does things to create consequences. A butterfly flaps its wings in the sahara and we have a hurricane in Florida. This is physics. It the axiomatic law of cause and effect. This law works equally for matter or energy.
If I hurt someone, I create a wave of consequences. My negative energy combines with that person’s hurt energy and it creates a consequence that later affects me. Something like a boomerang. I send out energy and it comes back to me.
If something happens to me seemingly without cause or seemingly unrelated to me, it could be a result of a consequence I initiated long before, in this lifetime or some other, that I have forgotten. It could also be caused by someone else who is now creating a consequence by involving me in some action they initiated. I make things happen and others make things happen to me. This also works for groups. A group can make something happen or someone can make it happen to them. This group could be a nationality, a religion, a sexual orientation, a race or color, an economic status, a random bunch of people in a mall, or something else. Either I am entangled in a consequence that I initiated or I am becoming entangled in one that someone else initiates.
All reactions have a cause. Although we sometimes can see the cause, usually the causes are so complex or over such durations of time that we cannot understand them. But all effects have a cause. And yes, there is “chance” in the sense that someone can initiate an action that entangles me. If that entanglement resonates with what I am, it affects me more than if it does not.
The real question is, “Can I suffer some pain without me initiating a cause for that pain?” One might think that one could suffer unjustly. I doubt this. Maybe I did not create the consequence, but I might have to suffer something as part of balancing the energy of cause and effect. Let us say I created some act that has a consequence, but that consequence has not yet appeared. If the consequence requires me to experience a painful entanglement, how that occurs is not as important as it occuring. So if my being a member of a certain group gives an excuse for me to experience this, then this is how it occurs.
From this point of view, there is no chance. Everything finds balance in this world. Yet, from another point of view there is chance. The specific form of suffering or enjoyment, or consequence that I experience could be the result of some random person’s actions. I could also experience something that I should not. I must later experience a balance for that. Perhaps more enjoyment, or perhaps more suffering? Who can say…
The only principle that could affect karma, besides cause and effect, is the second law of balance. All things seek a state of balance for when they are out of balance the natural law is to restore balance. One could say karma is the law of cause and effect seeking a state of balance. If this definition makes sense, then it also applies to creatures other than human beings. Perhaps the animals do not have to suffer their karma, but still they suffer and enjoy due to cause and effect and their existence similarly seeks balance.
Who controls this? These are physical laws that govern the universe. These laws govern all matter and energy. This is balanced by whichever higher authorities create balance as “nature.”
Karma means consequence. An act is performed and a consequence arises. Cause and effect. Rather simple, actually. Everything has a cause. Every cause has an effect. If you say that the word effect is synonymous with reaction, then you could say that every cause has a reaction. I do not like to use the word reaction because its usage tends to amplify something negative, as in “bad reactions that are sinful create suffering.” Please listen to my lecture, “Why good things happen to bad people,” for more about my views on good and bad in this realm of variables.
Every act has a consequence. We do things all the time. We constantly create consequences. Every creature does things to create consequences. A butterfly flaps its wings in the sahara and we have a hurricane in Florida. This is physics. It the axiomatic law of cause and effect. This law works equally for matter or energy.
If I hurt someone, I create a wave of consequences. My negative energy combines with that person’s hurt energy and it creates a consequence that later affects me. Something like a boomerang. I send out energy and it comes back to me.
If something happens to me seemingly without cause or seemingly unrelated to me, it could be a result of a consequence I initiated long before, in this lifetime or some other, that I have forgotten. It could also be caused by someone else who is now creating a consequence by involving me in some action they initiated. I make things happen and others make things happen to me. This also works for groups. A group can make something happen or someone can make it happen to them. This group could be a nationality, a religion, a sexual orientation, a race or color, an economic status, a random bunch of people in a mall, or something else. Either I am entangled in a consequence that I initiated or I am becoming entangled in one that someone else initiates.
All reactions have a cause. Although we sometimes can see the cause, usually the causes are so complex or over such durations of time that we cannot understand them. But all effects have a cause. And yes, there is “chance” in the sense that someone can initiate an action that entangles me. If that entanglement resonates with what I am, it affects me more than if it does not.
The real question is, “Can I suffer some pain without me initiating a cause for that pain?” One might think that one could suffer unjustly. I doubt this. Maybe I did not create the consequence, but I might have to suffer something as part of balancing the energy of cause and effect. Let us say I created some act that has a consequence, but that consequence has not yet appeared. If the consequence requires me to experience a painful entanglement, how that occurs is not as important as it occuring. So if my being a member of a certain group gives an excuse for me to experience this, then this is how it occurs.
From this point of view, there is no chance. Everything finds balance in this world. Yet, from another point of view there is chance. The specific form of suffering or enjoyment, or consequence that I experience could be the result of some random person’s actions. I could also experience something that I should not. I must later experience a balance for that. Perhaps more enjoyment, or perhaps more suffering? Who can say…
The only principle that could affect karma, besides cause and effect, is the second law of balance. All things seek a state of balance for when they are out of balance the natural law is to restore balance. One could say karma is the law of cause and effect seeking a state of balance. If this definition makes sense, then it also applies to creatures other than human beings. Perhaps the animals do not have to suffer their karma, but still they suffer and enjoy due to cause and effect and their existence similarly seeks balance.
Who controls this? These are physical laws that govern the universe. These laws govern all matter and energy. This is balanced by whichever higher authorities create balance as “nature.”
-
kamalamala1
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:46 pm
Re: karma
Thank you very much for your answer
But another question arising in this regard.
As i understand animals doesnt get the reactions from actions of there previous life,but they get reactions from present life actions
Is it so?
Does it mean if for example cat eat mouse then he will get reaction for that act in this lifetime.?
If it is not so that mean that cat can make pain to mouse and doesnt get reaction so the law of balance will not wark properly.
And also another question arising does animals evolving to human form or they alwayes will be in there animal form in there
next lifes,?
But another question arising in this regard.
As i understand animals doesnt get the reactions from actions of there previous life,but they get reactions from present life actions
Is it so?
Does it mean if for example cat eat mouse then he will get reaction for that act in this lifetime.?
If it is not so that mean that cat can make pain to mouse and doesnt get reaction so the law of balance will not wark properly.
And also another question arising does animals evolving to human form or they alwayes will be in there animal form in there
next lifes,?
Re: karma
I find it interesting that Christians think that animals have no soul and Vedic people say that animals make no karma. Let’s examine this.
The human soul has the capacity to determine what is right and wrong and to restrict his or her activity according to moral, ethical or other higher principles. The human can also distinguish between actions which seem good in the short term but which are harmful over longer periods of time. Animals do not generally act according to long term interests, for example, a dog chasing a car or a squirrel running across a busy road. The joy of the chase supersedes their need to survive. Dogs love to eat horse droppings and always get sick because of it, but due to their inability to understand cause and effect, they cannot put two and two together and understand that eating horse poop makes them sick. This lack of rational capacity is what causes them to be seen as “lower” than humans.
Every living being is affected by the law of cause and effect. Every actions creates a consequence, regardless if you are human or animal. The human has a rational brain to make connections between an action and a long term result, whereas animals do not. Even so, many humans engage in self-destructive behavior. They act to harm themselves through drinking alcohol, drugs, bad foods, toxic waste absorption, dangerous activity and so on. They do this even though they have the capacity to understand this is not in their best interests. Indeed, they can feel a need to gradually kill themselves when they are depressed or unable to deal with their reality, and cover this need by suppressing it out of their conscious awareness. Lemmings aside, animals generally do not share this conscious or subconscious desire for self-destruction.
An animal acts according to instinct and the immediate gratification of their desires. Some species do store food for the winter or prepare for bad situations, but this is instinctual and not rational.
All beings suffer consequences when they do something improper, but the human has the capacity to know better. When someone commits a crime and goes before the court, one of the most important elements in the prosecution is determining if the crime was committed in full knowledge or if it was accidental or done without understanding it was wrong. For example, if I give someone with a peanut allergy peanuts and they die from it, it makes a huge difference if I did it purposely to harm them or it was an accident. The difference is a charge of murder versus a costly mistake done in ignorance.
Animals act according to their nature and instincts and therefore are not held responsible for their acts as humans are. Humans know better and therefore have to act reasonably. Animals have to act within their species according to their nature and follow that which is ordained for them. They have little choice. Humans have to find their way to express themselves within the confines of laws, social demands, and other rationally created limitations.
Because animals are not consciously responsible for “crimes” they are not punished for crimes. Therefore, although the vedic culture accepts that animals are spiritual living beings created by God, they are not held accountable for their acts under the same rules as humans. From this point of view one can say they are not under karma. However, one has to modify one’s understanding of karma to accommodate this. One may say that karma is accrued when one’s premeditated decisions create favorable or unfavorable consequence that manifest in the future.
Since the human being is meant to learn and develop through each lifetime’s experience, it is important for him to deal with each consequence. Each decision represents his mentality and energy, his desires and needs, and resolving this is essential to his evolution. Therefore, his energy field stores the potential for development life after life in the form of meeting and dealing with situations in the present that were created in the past. This potential remains till it is properly dealt with.
Animals do not store consequences as every decision represents their instinct and energy at the moment. They do not require to deal with it life after life. They deal with it in the here and now.
So if a cat eats a mouse the reaction is that the cat is full and the barn has one less mouse. If the mouse had some disease that was harmful to the cat but the cat could not perceive it, then the cat will get sick. Cause and effect are always valid in all cases and at all times. The balance in creation is built into it. One species is food for another. They do not suffer when they eat. Animals cannot throw the balance of creation out of synch. Humans can and do so all the time, and the need for the restoration of balance requires the humans to deal with their accrued consequences.
Since I cannot answer from personal experience about the future lives of animals, you should refer to scriptures for this answer and believe what you feel is right.
The human soul has the capacity to determine what is right and wrong and to restrict his or her activity according to moral, ethical or other higher principles. The human can also distinguish between actions which seem good in the short term but which are harmful over longer periods of time. Animals do not generally act according to long term interests, for example, a dog chasing a car or a squirrel running across a busy road. The joy of the chase supersedes their need to survive. Dogs love to eat horse droppings and always get sick because of it, but due to their inability to understand cause and effect, they cannot put two and two together and understand that eating horse poop makes them sick. This lack of rational capacity is what causes them to be seen as “lower” than humans.
Every living being is affected by the law of cause and effect. Every actions creates a consequence, regardless if you are human or animal. The human has a rational brain to make connections between an action and a long term result, whereas animals do not. Even so, many humans engage in self-destructive behavior. They act to harm themselves through drinking alcohol, drugs, bad foods, toxic waste absorption, dangerous activity and so on. They do this even though they have the capacity to understand this is not in their best interests. Indeed, they can feel a need to gradually kill themselves when they are depressed or unable to deal with their reality, and cover this need by suppressing it out of their conscious awareness. Lemmings aside, animals generally do not share this conscious or subconscious desire for self-destruction.
An animal acts according to instinct and the immediate gratification of their desires. Some species do store food for the winter or prepare for bad situations, but this is instinctual and not rational.
All beings suffer consequences when they do something improper, but the human has the capacity to know better. When someone commits a crime and goes before the court, one of the most important elements in the prosecution is determining if the crime was committed in full knowledge or if it was accidental or done without understanding it was wrong. For example, if I give someone with a peanut allergy peanuts and they die from it, it makes a huge difference if I did it purposely to harm them or it was an accident. The difference is a charge of murder versus a costly mistake done in ignorance.
Animals act according to their nature and instincts and therefore are not held responsible for their acts as humans are. Humans know better and therefore have to act reasonably. Animals have to act within their species according to their nature and follow that which is ordained for them. They have little choice. Humans have to find their way to express themselves within the confines of laws, social demands, and other rationally created limitations.
Because animals are not consciously responsible for “crimes” they are not punished for crimes. Therefore, although the vedic culture accepts that animals are spiritual living beings created by God, they are not held accountable for their acts under the same rules as humans. From this point of view one can say they are not under karma. However, one has to modify one’s understanding of karma to accommodate this. One may say that karma is accrued when one’s premeditated decisions create favorable or unfavorable consequence that manifest in the future.
Since the human being is meant to learn and develop through each lifetime’s experience, it is important for him to deal with each consequence. Each decision represents his mentality and energy, his desires and needs, and resolving this is essential to his evolution. Therefore, his energy field stores the potential for development life after life in the form of meeting and dealing with situations in the present that were created in the past. This potential remains till it is properly dealt with.
Animals do not store consequences as every decision represents their instinct and energy at the moment. They do not require to deal with it life after life. They deal with it in the here and now.
So if a cat eats a mouse the reaction is that the cat is full and the barn has one less mouse. If the mouse had some disease that was harmful to the cat but the cat could not perceive it, then the cat will get sick. Cause and effect are always valid in all cases and at all times. The balance in creation is built into it. One species is food for another. They do not suffer when they eat. Animals cannot throw the balance of creation out of synch. Humans can and do so all the time, and the need for the restoration of balance requires the humans to deal with their accrued consequences.
Since I cannot answer from personal experience about the future lives of animals, you should refer to scriptures for this answer and believe what you feel is right.
-
kamalamala1
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:46 pm
Re: karma
Thank you for your very interesting answer.
So many questions still arising in this regard.
But one of the main is still the following.
Reaction on each action is suffering or enjoymant or something else.
But as i understand one cannot suffer without reason if we are suffering then there should be a reason and initial action.
So let take a mouse there are no karma for animals so why poor mouse ar cawes or any other animals
complitly being innocent should suffer pain?
As i understand that nothing can be without reason and pain without reason also should not be.
I cannot still answer this question for myself.
So many questions still arising in this regard.
But one of the main is still the following.
Reaction on each action is suffering or enjoymant or something else.
But as i understand one cannot suffer without reason if we are suffering then there should be a reason and initial action.
So let take a mouse there are no karma for animals so why poor mouse ar cawes or any other animals
complitly being innocent should suffer pain?
As i understand that nothing can be without reason and pain without reason also should not be.
I cannot still answer this question for myself.
Re: karma
The overall reason for all action and reaction is that we exist within the realm of action and reaction. Simply being here is reason enough for all forms of suffering and enjoyment and everything in-between. The event of our "entry" into this realm, if that is an appropriate thing to say, is the cause of subsequent involvement in the cycle of cause and effect, regardless of whether you call it karma or not.
I cannot defend or justify why things are the way they are. I can only state the obvious: Things are the way they are because they are. We all know it. We can only think about why they are as they are and come to our own conclusion about it.
I cannot defend or justify why things are the way they are. I can only state the obvious: Things are the way they are because they are. We all know it. We can only think about why they are as they are and come to our own conclusion about it.
-
kamalamala1
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:46 pm
Re: karma
Dear Hari thank you for your answer.
In this regard as i mentioned arrising so many questions.
But one is very important
Since kiling animals is an extrimly painfull act for animals, this should deffenatly make karmic reaction for people.
Now dayes people kill so many caws and other animals without real need.
So please tell will people who eat meat get the reaction for the killing animals and even fishes?
And wath kind reaction this can be, the reactions in this life time or even reactions in future lifes and even lifes between the lifes?
And by the way can the actes make reaction in the life between lifes.?
In this regard as i mentioned arrising so many questions.
But one is very important
Since kiling animals is an extrimly painfull act for animals, this should deffenatly make karmic reaction for people.
Now dayes people kill so many caws and other animals without real need.
So please tell will people who eat meat get the reaction for the killing animals and even fishes?
And wath kind reaction this can be, the reactions in this life time or even reactions in future lifes and even lifes between the lifes?
And by the way can the actes make reaction in the life between lifes.?
Re: karma
Well, I'm not sure.
You are asking me a question about philosophy, not my experiences. You already know the answer from other philosophies, and I have nothing to add or subtract from these answers.
I am a vegan because I do not wish to cause animals pain. Causing anyone pain without cause always creates a reaction somehow. How that reaction comes is unknown. But it shall. For me, the idea of killing an animal or causing them pain (unless they require chastisement, as children do) is repulsive and if I were to do it, I would be devastated within. My emotional and psychological reaction to such acts would be painful for me.
But according to previously learned philosophies, sinful acts that are not considered sinful in the communities within which they are performed are not sins. Interesting no? You will find this stated within one of those books!
You are asking me a question about philosophy, not my experiences. You already know the answer from other philosophies, and I have nothing to add or subtract from these answers.
I am a vegan because I do not wish to cause animals pain. Causing anyone pain without cause always creates a reaction somehow. How that reaction comes is unknown. But it shall. For me, the idea of killing an animal or causing them pain (unless they require chastisement, as children do) is repulsive and if I were to do it, I would be devastated within. My emotional and psychological reaction to such acts would be painful for me.
But according to previously learned philosophies, sinful acts that are not considered sinful in the communities within which they are performed are not sins. Interesting no? You will find this stated within one of those books!
-
kamalamala1
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:46 pm
Re: karma
Yes i read it in as i remember in Micael Newtons books
But i just consider that it is his personal point of vew
Harijee it is arising a question in this regard
If the tradition is a main factor of some act be a sin or not then why the vise Vedic times people made such a tradition that killing animals is a sin why they made by this the life of many addicted to meat eating so sinful?
But i just consider that it is his personal point of vew
Harijee it is arising a question in this regard
If the tradition is a main factor of some act be a sin or not then why the vise Vedic times people made such a tradition that killing animals is a sin why they made by this the life of many addicted to meat eating so sinful?
-
kamalamala1
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:46 pm
Re: karma
Ok i got some answer at least it can help
In vedic scriptures it is stated that the laws of karma warked differently in different yugas.
Ecspesially in kali yuga many things wich could be considered sins in other yugas is not sin in Kali yuga
But i am not sure about killing animals can we apply this .
Hari is writing that there are deffenatly should be reaction but if it is not a sin in some tradition then maybe this reaction will not so havvy
as it could be in other yugas and in other traditions
In vedic scriptures it is stated that the laws of karma warked differently in different yugas.
Ecspesially in kali yuga many things wich could be considered sins in other yugas is not sin in Kali yuga
But i am not sure about killing animals can we apply this .
Hari is writing that there are deffenatly should be reaction but if it is not a sin in some tradition then maybe this reaction will not so havvy
as it could be in other yugas and in other traditions
Re: karma
The problem with these questions is that you are asking me to gauge how sinful something is and what kind or what quantity of reaction there will be for an act. Now how am I supposed to do that? What practical experience would I have that would qualify me to determine this answer? This is better asked to those who control the universe, than to little ol' me! And if you wanted a philosophical answer, there are plenty of philosophers who will be glad to answer, although they will probably disagree...
-
kamalamala1
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:46 pm
Re: karma
Harijee!
In your wanderful book Living Energy (russian edition)it is very nicely explaing the concept how thoughtforms acting in karmic reactions/
The thought forms concept It is actually very nicely explaining a lot in this karma isue/
But still it is a question is all this karmic processes going on automatically as you explained because of thoughtforms or some karma controller personalities also engaged in this complicated process ?
I wanted to ask this question during your last broadcast which was a week ago but the issue of your broadcast was completely
different
In your wanderful book Living Energy (russian edition)it is very nicely explaing the concept how thoughtforms acting in karmic reactions/
The thought forms concept It is actually very nicely explaining a lot in this karma isue/
But still it is a question is all this karmic processes going on automatically as you explained because of thoughtforms or some karma controller personalities also engaged in this complicated process ?
I wanted to ask this question during your last broadcast which was a week ago but the issue of your broadcast was completely
different
Re: karma
The brunt of the burden of delivering karmic justice, in whatever form it appears, lies with material nature. Consequences build up due to the choices we make. At a certain point, the weight of accumulated events results in an apparent reaction. Although most of the reactions come within the arena of the world within which we live, occasionally outside forces impact us when the need arises. People, nature, etheric based beings, energy forms or vibrations, celestial beings, departed souls, angels, or Divine beings all share in manifesting our future. No one can predict which of these elements will contribute to our receiving our karma, and not all of them are involved all the time. According to how events are seeded by our choices in our field of action, the future is cultured. Karma is the sum total of all factors within the entirety of existence. Although all things affect everything, generally only a small portion of existence is directly involved in delivering our results. Periodically, the entire universe moves to accomodate our actions.