Reincarnation and the Law ofKarma

Chapter XII

The Law of Karma.

'Karma' is a term in general use among the Hindus, and the Western believers in Reincarnation, the meaning of which is susceptible to various shades of definition and interpretation. It is most important to all students of the subject of Reincarnation, for it is the companion doctrine - the twin-truth - to the doctrine of Metempsychosis. Strictly speaking, 'Karma' is the Law of Cause and Effect as applied to the life of the soul - the law whereby it reaps the results of its own sowing, or suffers the reaction from its own action. To the majority of Reincarnationists, however, it has a larger meaning, and is used in the sense of the Law of Justice, or the Law of Reward and Punishment, operating along the lines of personal experience, personal life, and personal character.

Many authorities hold that the original idea of Karma was that of a great natural law operating along exact lines, as do the laws of mathematics and chemistry, bringing forth the exact effect from every cause, and being, above all, questions of good and evil, reward or punishment, morality or immorality, etc., and acting as a great natural force above all questions of human conduct. To those who still adhere to this conception, Karma is like the Law of Gravitation, which operates without regard to persons, morals or questions of good and evil, just as does any other great natural law. In this view the only 'right' or 'wrong' would be the effect of an action - that is, whether it was conducive to one's welfare and that of the race, or the reverse. In this view, if a child places its hand on a hot stove, the action is 'wrong,' because it brings pain and unhappiness, although the act is neither moral nor immoral. And another action is 'right' because it brings happiness, well-being and satisfaction, present and future, although the act was neither moral nor immoral. In this view there can be neither reward nor punishment, in the common acceptance of the term, although in another sense there is a reward for such 'right' doing, as the child with the burnt hand, may testify.

In this sense of the term, some of the older schools of Reincarnation accepted Karma as determining the Re-Birth, along the lines of Desire and Attraction, holding that the soul's character would attract it to re-birth along the lines of its strongest desires, and in such environment as would give it the greatest opportunity to work out those desires into action, taking the pains and pleasures of experience arising from such action, and thus moulding a new, or fuller character, which would create new Karma, which would determine the future birth, etc., and so on, and on. Those holding to this view believed that in this way the soul would learn its lesson, with many a crack over the knuckles, and with the pain of many an experience that would tend to turn it into the road most conducive to spiritual happiness and well-being; and lead it away from the road of material desires and pleasures, because the repeated experiences had shown that no true spiritual well-being was to be obtained therefrom. In other words, the soul, in its spiritual childhood, was just like a little child in the physical world, learning by experience that some things worked for its 'good' and others for 'bad.' This view naturally carried with it the idea that true ethics would show that whatever tended toward the advancement of the soul was 'good,' and whatever retarded its advancement was 'bad,' in spite of any arbitrary standard of right and wrong erected by man during the ages, and which standard has constantly changed from time to time, is changing now, and always will change.

But the Hindu mind, especially, soon enlarged upon this original idea of Karma, and the priests of India soon had the idea of Karma working as a great rewarder of 'good,' and a great punisher of 'evil.' Corresponding to the rewards and punishments in the future life, as taught by Christian preachers, the Hindu priests held over the sinner the terrors of Karma; and the rewards promised the good people from the same source served to spur on the worshiper to actions in accordance with the ethics of the particular church preaching the doctrine. It was taught that the man's future state, in the next incarnation, and perhaps for many others, depended upon his state of 'goodness,' in accordance with the laws of the church and priestly teaching - surely as powerful an argument and as terrifying a threat as the orthodox 'bribe of heaven, and threat of hell' of the Western world. The effect of this teaching is seen among the masses of the but slightly educated Hindu classes of today, who are very desirous of acquiring 'merit' by performing some 'good' deed, such as bestowing alms upon the wandering religious mendicant; making contributions to the temples, etc., as well as performing the acts of ordinary goodwill towards men; and who are as equally anxious to avoid acquiring 'demerit' from the lack of proper observances, and the performance of improper actions. While the general effect of this may be in the direction of holding the ignorant masses in the ethical road most conducive to the public weal, it also has a tendency to foster credulity, superstition and imposition, just as do similar teachings in any land, time, under the cover of any religion. There is a strong family resemblance between these teachings among all the religions, and there are many men who hold that this 'crack of the theological whip' is most necessary for the keeping of the masses of the people in the strait road of morality, they being held incapable of the practice of 'doing good for good's sake, and avoiding evil because it is evil.' We shall not discuss this question - decide it for yourself.

One of the strongest applications of the above-mentioned form of doctrine in India is the teaching that the caste of the man in his next incarnation will be determined by his degree of 'good conduct' in the present life - and that his present caste has been determined by his conduct in his previous lives. No one who has not studied the importance of 'caste' in India can begin to understand how powerful a lever this teaching is upon the people of India. From the exalted Brahmin caste, the priestly caste - down to the Sudra caste of unskilled laborers, or even still further down to the Pariahs or outcasts, the caste lines are strongly marked; the higher caste person deeeming it the greatest disgrace to be touched by one of an inferior caste, or to eat food prepared by a lower-caste person, and so on in every act of daily life. The only comparison possible to the American mind is the attitude of the old-time Southerner toward the lowest class of negroes, and even in this case the predjudice does not extend so far as in the case of the Hindus, for the Southerner will eat food cooked by a negor servant, and will permit the latter to shave him, act as his valet, etc., something at which the high-caste Hindu would be horrified on the part of one below him in caste. This being understood, it is easy to see how careful a high-caste Hindu would be to avoid performing actions which might rob him of his caste in the next life, and how powerful an incentive it is to a low-caste Hindu to strive for birth to a higher caste after many incarnations. To people holding such a view, birth in a low caste is the mark of crime and evil action performed in a previous life, and the low-born is accordingly felt to be worthy of no respect. We understand, from Hindu acquaintances, that this idea is gradually being dispelled in India, and an era of common human brotherhood and common interest is beginning to manifest itself.

In the Western world, Reincarnationists, without doubt, have been greatly affected by the prevailing orthodox Hindu conception of Karma, rather than by the Grecian and general occult conception. Although there are many who regard Karma as rather a moulder of character, and consequently a prime factor in the re-birth, rather than as a dispenser of rewards and punishments - still, there are many who, discarding the orthodox Devil of their former faith, have found a worthy substitute for him in their conception of Karma, and manifest the same terror and fear of the new devil as of the old one - and his name may be summed up as FEAR, in both cases.

Theosophists have discussed the matter of Karma very thoroughly, and their leading authorities have written much about it, its various interpretations showing in the shades of opinion among the writers. Generally speaking, however, it may be said that they have bridged over the chasm between the 'natural law' idea and that of 'the moral law,' with its rewards and punishments, by an interpretation which places one foot on each conception, holding that there is truth in each. Of course, justice requires the reference of that student to the Theosophical writings themselves, for a detailed understanding of their views, but we feel that a brief summary of their general interpretation would be in order at this place.

One of their leading authorities states that the Law of Karma is automatic in action, and that there is no possible escape from it. He likewise holds that Absolute Justice is manifested in its operations, the idea of mercy or wrath being absent from it; and that, consequently, every debt must be paid in full, to the last penny, and that there is no vicarious atonement or exceptions made in answer to supplications made to a higher source. But he particularly states that this action of the law must not be confused with ordinary reward and punishment for 'good deed or bad,' but that the law acts just as does any other law of Nature, just as if we had put our hand in the fire we shall be burned as a natural consequence, and not as a punishment. In his statement of this view he says: "We hold that sorrow and suffering flow from sin just precisely in that way, under the direct working of natural law. It may be said, perhaps, that, obviously, the good man does not always reap his reward of good results, nor does the wicked man always suffer. Not always immediately; not always within our ken; but assuredly eventually and inexorably." The writer then goes on to define his conception of Good and Evil. He says: "We shall see more clearly that this must be so if we define exactly what we mean by good and evil. Our religious brothers would tell us that that was good which was in accordance with God's will, and that that was evil which was in opposition to it. The scientific man would say that that was good which helped evolution, and whatever hindered it was evil. Those two men are in reality saying exactly the same thing; for God's will for man is evolution, and when that is clearly realized all conflict between religion and science is at once ended. Anything therefore, which is against evolution of humanity as a whole is against the Divine Will. We see at once that when a man struggles to gain anything for himself at the expense of others he is distinctly doing evil, and it is evil because it is against the interest of the whole. Therefore the only true gain is that which is a gain for the race as a whole, and the man who gains something without cost or wrong to anyone is raising the whole race somewhat in the process. He is moving in the direction of evolution, while the other man is moving against it."

The same writer then gives the list of three kinds of Karma, according to the Hindu teachings, namely: "1. There is the Samchita, or 'piled up' Karma - the whole mass that still remains behind the man not yet worked out - the entire unpaid balance of the debit and credit account; 2. There is the Prarabdha, or 'beginning' Karma - the amount aportioned to the man at the commencement of each life - his destiny for that life, as it were; 3. There is the Kriomana Karma, that which we are now, by our actions in this present life, making for the future." He further states: "That second type, the Prarabdha Karma, is the only destiny which can be said to exist for man. That is what an astrologer might fortell for us - that we have apportioned to us so much good or evil fortune - so much the result of the good and evil actions of our past lives which will react on us in this. But we should remember always that this result of previous action can never compel us to action in the present. It may put us under conditions in which it will be difficult to avoid an act, but it can never compel us to commit it. The man of ordinary development would probably yeild to circumstances and commit the act; but he may assert his free will, rise superior to the circumstances, and gain a victory and a step in evolution. So with a good action, no man is forced into that either, but an opportunity is given to him. If he takes it certain results will follow - not necessarily a happy or wealthy life next time, but certainly a life of wider opportunity. That seems to be one of the things that are quite certain - that the man who has done well in this life has always the opportunity of doing still better in the next. This is nature's reward for good work - the opportunity to do more work. Of course, wealth is a great opportunity, so the reward often comes in that form, but the essence of the reward is the opportunity and not the pleasure which may be supposed to accompany the wealth." Another Theosophical writer says further on the subject of Karma: "Just as all these phases of Karma have sway over the individual man, so they similarly operate on races, nations, and families. Each race has its Karma as a whole. If it be good, that race goes forward; if bad, it goes out - annihilated as a race - though the souls concerned take up their Karma in other races and bodies. Nations cannot escape their national Karma, any nation that has acted in a wicked manner must suffer some day, be it soon or late." The same writer sums up the idea of individual unhappiness in any life, as follows: "(a) It is punishment for evil done in past lives; or (b) it is discipline taken up by the Ego for the purpose of eliminating defects or acquiring fortitude and sympathy. When defects are eliminated it is like removing the obstruction in an irrigating canal which then lets the water flow on. Happiness is explained the same way - the result of prior lives of goodness."

The general idea of a number of writers on the subject of Karma is that 'as ye sow, so shall ye reap,' brought down to a wonderful detail of arrangement, and effect flowing from causes. This conception, carried to its logical conclusion, would insist that every single bit of pain and unhappiness in this life is the result of some bad deed done either in the present life or in the past, and every bit of happiness, joy or pleasure, the result of some good action performed either in the present or past life. This conception of Karma affords us the most intricate, complex and detailed idea of reward for good, and punishment for evil (even when called 'the operation of natural law') possible to the mind of man. In its entirety, and carried to its last refinement of interpretation and analysis, it has a tendency to bewilder and terrify, for the chance of escape from its entangling machinery seems so slight. But still, the same authorities inform us that every soul will surmount these obstacles, and every one will Attain - so there is no need to be frightened, even if you accept the interpretation of doctrine in its comepleteness.

But there are some thinkers who carry this idea of retributive Karma to such an extreme that they hold that every instance of physical pain, disease, deformity, poverty, ill-fortune, etc., that we see among people, is the inevitable result of some moral wrong or crime committed by that person in some past life, and that therefore every instance of poverty, want or physical suffering is the just result of some moral offense. Some of the extremists have gone so far as to hesitate at relieving poverty, physical pain and suffering in others, lest by doing so they might possibly be 'interfering with Karma' - as if any great Law could be 'interfered with.' While we, generally, have refrained from insisting upon our personal preference of interpretation in this work, we cannot refrain from doing so in this instance. We consider that such an interpretation of the Law of Karma is forced and unnatural, and results from the seeming natural tendency of the human mind to build up devils for itself - and hells of one kind or another. Robbed of their Devil, many people would attribute to their God certain devilish qualities, in order that they may not be robbed of the satisfaction of smugly thinking of the 'just punishment' of others. And, if they have also discarded the idea of a Personal God, their demand for a Devil causes them to attribute certain devilish qualities to Natural Law. They are bound to find their Devil somewhere - the primitive demand for the Vengeful Spirit must manifest itself in one form or another.

These people confound the action of Cause and Effect on the Material and Physical Plane, with Cause and Effect on the Spiritual Plane, whereas all true occultists teach that the Cause operating on one plane mainifests Effects on the same plane. In this connection, we would call your attention to the instance in the New Testament (John IX., 2), in which Jesus was asked regarding the cause of the affliction of the man who was BORN BLIND. 'And his disciples asked Him, saying, "Master, who did this sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"' The question being asked in order that Jesus might determine between the two prevailing theories: (1) That the blindness was caused according to the operation of the law of Moses, which held that the sins of the parents were visited on the children to the third or fourth generation; or (2) that it was caused according to the Law of Karma, along the lines of reincarnation, and because of some sin which the man had committed in some past incarnation (for no other interpretation of the passage is possible, and it shows the prevalence of the idea of Reincarnation among the people of that time). But Jesus promptly brushed away these two crude, primitive conceptions and interpretations, and in the light of his superior spiritual knowledge answered: "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be manifest in him," the explanation of the term 'the works of God' being that Jesus meant thereby the operation of the Laws of Nature imposed by God - something above punishment for 'sins,' and which operated according to invariable physical laws and which affected the just and unjust alike, just as do any natural laws. It is now known that many infants are rendered blind by negligence of certain precautions at birth - this may have been a case of that kind. We consider any attempt to attribute physical infirmities to 'sin' unconnected with the physical trouble to be a reversion to primitive theological dogmas, and smacking strongly of the 'devil idea' of theology, of which we have spoken. And Poverty results from economic conditions, and not as punishment for 'Sin.' Nor is Wealth the reward of Virtue - far from it.

But before leaving this phase of the subject we would like to say that many careful thinkers have been able to discern certain spiritual benefits that have arisen from physical suffering, or poverty, and that the sufferers often manifest a high degree of spiritual development and growth seemingly by reason of their pain. Not only this, but the divine faculties of pity, help, and true sympathy, are brought out in others, by reason thereof. We think that this view of the matter is far more along the lines of true spirituality than that of want and disease as 'the punishment of sins committed in past lives.' Even the human idea of Justice revolts at this kind of 'punishment,' and in fact, the highest human justice and human law eliminates the idea of 'punishment' altogether, so far as reprisal or revenge is concerned, the penalty being regarded merely as a deterrent to others, and a warning to the criminal against further infractions of the law, and as a reformatory agent - this at least is the theory of Human Law - no matter how imperfectly it works out in practice - and we cannot think of Divine Law being less just and equitable, less merciful and loving. The 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' conception of human justice has been outlived by the race in its evolution.

After considering the above-mentioned extreme ideas of 'punishments,' through the Law of Karma, we ask you to consider the following lines written by a writer having a great insight, and published in a leading magazine several years ago. The idea of 'The Kindergarten of God' therein expressed, we think, is far nearer in accordance with the highest Occult Teachings, than the other idea of 'Divine Wrath' and punishment for sin, along the lines of a misinterpretation of the Law of Karma, worthy of the worshippers of some ancient Devil-God. Read this little quotation carefully, and then determine which of the two views seems to fit in better with your highest spiritual conceptions:

'A boy went to school. He was very little. All he knew he had drawn in with his mother's milk. His teacher (who was God) placed him in the lowest class, and gave him these lessons to learn: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt do no hurt to any living thing. Thou shalt not steal. So the man did not kill; but he was cruel, and he stole. At the end of the day (when his beard was gray - when the night was come), his teacher (who was God) said: Thou hast learned not to kill, But the other lessons thou hast not learned. Come back tomorrow.

'On the morrow he came back, a little boy. And his teacher (who was God) put him in a class a little higher, and gave him these lessons to learn: Thou shalt do no hurt to any living thing. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not cheat. So the man did no hurt to any living thing; but he stole and he cheated. And at the end of the day (when his beard was gray - when the night was come), his teacher (who was God) said: Thou hast learned to be merciful. But the other lessons thou hast not learned. Come back tomorrow.

'Again, on the morrow, he came back,a little boy. And his teacher (who was God) put him in a class yet a little higher, and gave him these lessons to learn: Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not cheat. So the man did not steal; but he cheated, and he coveted. And at the end of the day (when his beard was gray - when the night was come), his teacher (who was God) said: Thou hast learned not to steal. But the other lessons thou hast not learned. Come back my child, tomorrow.

'This is what I have read in the faces of men and women, in the book of the world, and in the scroll of the heavens, which is writ with stars.' - Berry Benson, in The Century Magazine, May 1894.

But there is still another view of Karma held by some Western thinkers, who received it from the Greek mystics and occultists, who in turn are thought to have received it from ancient Egypt. These people hold that the Law of Karma has naught to do with Man's theories of ethics, or religious dogmas or creeds, but has as the basis of its operations only Universal and Cosmic Principles of Action, applicable to the atom as well as Man - to the beings above Man as well. And that these universal principles of action have to do with the evolution of all things in Nature, according to well established laws. And that the evolving soul is continually striving to find the path along the lines of evolution, being urged to by the unfolding spirit within it - and that that 'path' is always along the lines of least spiritual friction, and therefore along the lines of the least ultimate spiritual pain. And that, accordingly, Spiritual Pain is an indication to the evolving thing that it is on the wrong path, and that it must find a better way onward - which message it heeds by reason of the pain, and accordingly seeks out for itself a better way, and one that will bring less spiritual pain and greater ultimate spiritual satisfaction.

This teaching holds that all material things are a source of more or less pain to the growing and evolving soul, which tends to urge it along the line of least spiritual resistence - the least spiritual friction. It may be that the soul does not recognize the direction of the urge, and insist in tasting this material pleasure (so-thought) and then that - only to find that neither satisfy - that both are Dead Sea Fruit - that both have the thorn attached to the flower - that all bring pain, satiety and disgust - the consequence being that the tired and wearied soul, when rested by the Lethal slumber, and then reborn has a horror and distaste for the things which disgusted it in its previous life, and is therefore urged toward opposite things. If the soul has not been satiated - has not yet been pricked by the hidden thorn - it wishes to go on further in the dream of material pleasure, and so it does, until it learns its lesson. Finally perceiving the folly and worthlessness of materiality, it emerges from its cocoon and, spreading out its newly found wings, takes its flight for higher planes of action and being - and so on, and on, and on, for ever.

Under this view people are not punished 'for' their sins, but 'by' them - and 'Sin'is seen to be merely a 'mistake,' not a crime. And Pain arises not as a punishment for something done wrongly, but as a warning sign of 'hands off'; and consequently Pain is something by which we may mount to higher things - to Something Better - and not a punishment. And this idea holds, also, that on the physical plane physical law governs, and physical effects follow physical causes; likewise on the mental plane; likewise on the Spiritual Plane. And therefore, it is absurd to suppose that one suffers physical pain as a punishment for some moral offense committed on another plane. On the contrary, however, this idea holds that from the physical pain which was occasioned by the operation of physical law alone one may develop higher spiritual states by reason of a better understanding of the nature of pain in oneslf and others. And this idea refuses to recognize material pleasures or profits as a reward for spiritual or moral actions.

On the whole this last-mentioned conception of Karma refuses to use the terms 'reward or punishment,' or even to entertain those ideas, but instead sees in everything the working-out of a great Cosmic Plan whereby everything rises from lower to higher, and still higher. To it Karma is but one phase of the great LAW operating in all planes and forms of Life and the Universe. To it the idea that 'THE UNIVERSE IS GOVERNED BY LAW'is an axiom. And while to it ULTIMATE JUSTICE is also axiomatic, it sees not in the operation of penalties and reward - merits and demerits - the proof of that Ultimate Justice; it looks for it and finds it in the conception and realizing that ALL WORKS FOR GOOD - that Everything is tending upward - that everything is justified and just, because the END is ABSOLUTE GOOD, and that every tiny working of the great cosmic machinery is turning in the right direction and to that end. Consequently, each of us is just where he should be at the present time - and our condition is exactly the very best to bring us to that Divine Consummation and End. And to such thinkers, indeed, there is no Devil but Fear and Unfaith, and all other devils are illusions, whether they be called Beelzebub, Mortal-Mind, or Karma, if they produce Fear and Unfaith in the All-Good. And such thinkers feel that the way to live according to the Higher Light, and without fear of a Malevolent Karma, is to feel one's relationship with the Universal Good, and then to 'Live One Day at a Time - Doing the Best You Know How - and Be Kind' - knowing that in the All-Good you live and move and have your being, and that outside of the All-Good you cannot stray, for there is no outside - knowing THAT which brought you Here will be with you There - that Death is but a phase of Life - and above all that THERE IS NOTHING TO BE AFRAID OF - and that ALL IS WELL with God; with the Universe ; and with YOU!

FINIS