Karma Law Script Four

Karma Law Script Four

Karma Law Script Four

Continued from script 3

But there are some thinkers who carry this idea of retributive Karma to such an extreme. There are those who 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 crimecommitted by that person in some past life. Therefore every instance of poverty, want or physical suffering is the justresult 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 so doing 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 so doing 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 manifests effects upon 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 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 unto the third and 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 the 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 diseaseas “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 of 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 out-lived by the race in its evolution.Karma Law Script Four

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 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 worshipers 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:Read More

Back to script three


Thank you for visiting our website may your God or Goddess be with you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *