Karma - an in depth look

[Eowyn]

I'm not a big fan of Edgar Cayce (basically because I'm not a big fan of anyone, as I explained in previous posts), but in my opinion, this is one of the best definitions of karma I've found (bolds are mine):

From the Cayce readings’ perspective the past merely provided a framework of potentials and probabilities. An individual’s choices, actions, and free will in the present would determine the actual experience lived this time around. Rather than being a fatalistic approach to life, it is much more one of nearly limitless opportunities.
Cayce, however, was also familiar with the less positive aspects to this philosophy. He contended that some approaches created a misunderstanding of the real purpose behind reincarnation. In fact an approach to reincarnation that did not take into account freedom of choice created what he called “a karmic bugaboo” – a misunderstanding that provided no arena for the real action and interconnectedness that exists among karma, free will, destiny, and grace. In his understanding, individuals were very much active participants in their life’s journey and not at all simply sometime-reluctant observers. However, even to this day, the theory of reincarnation is often misinterpreted as a fatalistic journey through experiences and relationships that are ours because of our “karma.” In this approach, choices we have made in the past have somehow etched in stone our futures, and life is simply a process of going through the motions. This is definitely not the Cayce approach to karma.


The word karma is a Sanskrit term that means “work, deed, or act”; it has also been interpreted to mean “cause and effect.” Although the readings definitely agree with this concept, perhaps one of their most intriguing and unique philosophical contributions is the idea that karma can simply be defined as memory. It is not really a “debt” that must be paid according to some universal tally sheet nor is it necessarily a set of specific circumstances that must be experienced because of deeds or misdeeds from the past. Karma is simply memory. It is a pool of information that the subconscious mind draws upon and can utilize in the present. It has elements that are positive as well as those which seem negative. For example, an immediate affinity toward an individual is as likely to be “karmic” as is an immediate animosity toward someone else. To be sure, this subconscious memory has an effect and influence on how we think, how we react, what we choose, and even how we look! But the component of free will is ever within our grasp.


In Cayce’s explanation of reincarnation when an individual dies, the next lifetime does not occur immediately, for the soul is given a chance to take stock of all it has come to know. Then, it has the opportunity to decide for itself what lessons it needs to learn next in order to become a more complete individual. The soul chooses to be born again into the earth, generally among people it has known before. A soul can decide to be born into either a male or a female body in any given lifetime or, as Cayce often called it, an “incarnation.” The choices made are such that the soul might best fulfill that specific purpose chosen for a particular lifetime. It selects those surroundings (parents and family, location and time period, etc.) that will best allow for the learning of those lessons it needs for completeness. The goal is to express love fully in all the challenges that the physical life offers. Our experiences, however, are subject to the choices we have made with our own free will.


With our free will, we can turn the challenges life presents to us into stepping-stones toward growth, or we can see them as obstacles and stumbling blocks. Either way, we reap what we have sown. We constantly meet the consequences of previous deeds and attitudes.

 

[Eowyn]

Another major philosophical contribution the Cayce readings provide is the idea that there really isn’t karma “between” people; instead, there is only karma with one’s own self. The conceptual challenge, however, is that we seem to most effectively come to terms with our own karmic memory or “meet ourselves” through our interactions with others. It is this interesting dynamic of meeting ourselves through our relationships with other individuals that oftentimes causes us to perceive them as the basis of our frustrations and challenges, rather than accepting the responsibility as our own.
Yet in spite of the fact that our karma is essentially ours, we are constantly drawn toward certain individuals and groups that will enable us to meet ourselves in probable circumstances and relationships. They, in turn, are drawn toward us in an effort to come to terms with their own karmic memory as well. Interestingly enough, it is how each individual decides to “meet self” – one choice at a time – that will essentially determine the life he or she experiences.


These karmic groups oftentimes reestablish themselves in terms of family relationships, work and cultural ties, and even associations on a national level. Cayce stated that we never meet anyone by chance, nor do we ever have an emotional connection (“positive” or “negative”) with another individual for the very first time. Relationships are an ongoing learning and experiential process.


Within this framework of lessons that need to be learned as the soul strives to meet itself is the central idea that the soul is constantly experiencing the consequences of its previous choices. This concept is expressed in Biblical terminology as, “What you sow, you must reap” and is generally labeled “like attracts like” by students of reincarnation.


Essentially what this means is that we get to experience for ourselves the effects our previous choices have had upon other individuals. Rather than our lives being predestined or fatalistic in nature, we continue to be in control of them (and our perceptions) through how we choose to respond to life’s situations that we’ve drawn to us. Ultimately all experiences are for our own good and growth, and all experiences are of our own creation.

http://www.edgarcayce.org/are/edgarcayce.aspx?id=2498&terms=karma


For those who like The third eye by Lobsang Rompa, there's something he says I also like a lot: karma has nothing to do with punishment or reward, depending on what you did in the past. It's simply you have a purpose in each incarnation, and according to that purpose, you choose the tools you're going to use: skills, family, environment...


I got the impression reading this thread that people living in a slum in India or in bad circumstances couldn't have chosen that kind of life, implying it had to be something "imposed" by someone, whatever the reason (which I prefer not to imagine). I have my doubts about to which extent we choose, but... Thinking about this, I'd like to end my intervention in this thread (this time definitively) saying that I feel quite the contrary: only brave and highly compassionate souls would come to this world and live on those conditions. And if we can't understand that, possibly it's because we still don't know what life is about. Just a reflection of mine...


Thanks for everyone's thoughts.

 

[argonne1918]

I'm not a big fan of Edgar Cayce (basically because I'm not a big fan of anyone, as I explained in previous posts), but in my opinion, this is one of the best definitions of karma I've found (bolds are mine):

Edgar Cayce is the reason people, including those of us here, talk about reincarnation. While in trance he gave the first modern past life readings. The past life readings were not asked for, he just included them with his medical diagnosis. The History cable channel several years ago produced an episode on Edgar Cayce, comparing him to Nostradamus. They described Cayce's childhood and early years, medical diagnosis, etc. But they completely left out any mention of his past life readings. I wonder why? Maybe they were afraid people would change the channel?

 

[AOSpare]

Cayce was a phenomena, one of the kind. But I do not take everything her said, or allegedly say for granted.

Edgar Cayce is the reason people, including those of us here, talk about reincarnation. While in trance he gave the first modern past life readings. The past life readings were not asked for, he just included them with his medical diagnosis. The History cable channel several years ago produced an episode on Edgar Cayce, comparing him to Nostradamus. They described Cayce's childhood and early years, medical diagnosis, etc. But they completely left out any mention of his past life readings. I wonder why? Maybe they were afraid people would change the channel?

 

[AOSpare]

Lobsang Rampa's concept of the "Third Eye" is, at least by its name, based on an ancient Hindu dogma, so it cannot be accepted


The same Hindu's also teach that our reality is all a dream(Maya, illusion), so in that context you maybe onto something, however this Reality/Dream has very strict rules until you reach the exit door. The Dream exists in the here and the hereafter, it only ceases to exist on the very highest levels on consciousness where time/space begins to evaporate and the real manifests itself as infinity.

Begging your pardon? And what are you going to teach me exactly? Old religious beliefs based on what? On thousands of observations? Someone said this conversation was going in circles, and yes, he was right...
It's curious, I was thinking the same about you... repeating things I had said earlier, like this, which I said quite early in this discussion:


Really? Did I turn 180º? Liking a theory a lot doesn't mean I agree TOTALLY with it. I'm not the one who accepts theories blindly, btw, I thought that was clear enough. My own theory is the one I posted first: Karma doesn't exist, not as a **** law. Do you want me to repeat it again? I had to resort to Cayce because he explained it much better than me, and that's the theory I feel closer to: karma is memory. No need to use the word karma at all. In case you didn't see it, I will quote myself:


If you read carefully that's basically what Lobsang Rampa said in that book (and if you are interested in hearing the rest of my opinion, that's one of the few things worth in the book). And I will add I'm closer to this theory (though not as much as Cayce's) because it matches my own experiences and other people's. It's more than a tale, not like the rest that has been said here.


My eyes are wide open, thanks. And this thread is only proving what I meant to say in the Krishnamurti quote you found interesting.


And please stop quoting me because I feel obliged to reply and I don't want to. This subject bores me, like I said in my first post too, and there's no one saying something new I haven't heard before. I'm not here to argue with anyone, just to state my opinion... or do I have to keep quiet if I disagree?

 

[FirstBorn9/11]

After your return to Oneness you won't be in the state of "separation", you have arrived - crossed the finish line. Now, you no longer need your physical appearance and you will have gained infinite knowledge and wisdom. This is what the ancient's called Heaven, Bliss, Nirvana, Paradise etc. On the other hand true Hell is descending into matter, our earthly bodies, and lives.
If you wish, in that ultimate state you can incarnate and return to help others but THEN it is your choice alone, not before!

I'm new to this forum and forgive me for butting in here, but I just wanted to say that I too believe this to be our final goal.