What is karma?

 

Contents:

Starting point

Moral presumption

Causality and karma

Why do children have to suffer?

Is karma everything?

Karma in the Bible

Why does God let it happen?

Have I been a perpetrator, too?

Or have I been a great benefactor or a famous personality?

How did it all begin?

How will it end?

Is the karma valid for everyone?

Is it allowed to kill?

 

 

Starting point

The starting point for this discussion is that the soul of a human being reincarnates. This is what an estimated 2/3 of the world’s population believe, among these 1/3 of the population in the Western culture, not few of them Christians. The latter in this respect privately have another opinion than their Church. The belief in reincarnation will be as old as humanity. It was there in almost all ancient cultures and religions, even in the Gnostic Christianity of the early Christians. One could state it in a simplified manner like this: Where there is no such belief to day (anymore), there it has once been earlier.

Those who do not believe in reincarnation belong to a minority – actually and historically – of the world’s population.

All religions teach that the human being has a self, called soul, which survives the death of the body. A self that after death remembers, thinks, feels and acts, even though it no more has a physical body. In this sense, the soul is an entity without a material body. (Only Buddhism speaks about another form of transfer than through what in the common concept is called a soul.)

The existence of a soul is, of course, a necessary condition for reincarnation. Because it is this soul, which, some time after the death of its previous body, connects with the embryo of a woman who just became pregnant and then is born in a new body.

Reincarnation can have a sense only if this soul carries information about its existence(s) from one embodiment into a new one, even if that information is unconscious in the new body.

It is an important achievement of modern psychology that it has proven that the human being has an unconscious self. Since we (with rare exceptions) have no memory in our conscious self of this information brought by the soul, this information will have to be in the unconscious self – in a similar manner as, e.g., forgotten childhood memories (which according to experience can pop up in the conscious self under certain circumstances).

It is also an achievement of modern psychology that it has shown how the human being – without knowing in the conscious self what is going on – is influenced by what is stored in the unconscious self, in certain cases to a remarkable extent.

From this starting point – the hypothesis of reincarnation – the following discussion deals with the question what in this case the world looks like for man and soul.

 

 

Moral presumption

We furthermore assume that the human soul develops in the course of repeated incarnations, i.e., that it in some manner becomes “better”. If the soul would essentially remain unchanged, or only change randomly (sometimes becoming better, sometimes worse), reincarnation would have no sense. We assume that it has a sense. We assume that the gradual (even though it may be slow) “betterment” manifests in an increasingly better interaction between different souls, in an increasing order in a soul population. A specific form of interaction is called “love” and is expressed in that the souls to a growing degree support and help each other, so that their interaction becomes increasingly effective and destructive aspects of their interaction gradually become less. Such an order has a voluntary character.

Other kinds of order in a population of incarnated souls have been and are observed, brought about by force, power and pressure. Since humans in such an order are not doing very well, this empirically leads to less productivity (in whatever sense productivity may be defined) and that the order is rather unstable. Such an order tends to break apart due to opposing (revolting) forces when the power pressure reaches a critical point.

We, therefore, here assume a development that in principle leads to an increasing order in the sense of a gradually improving voluntary interaction between the incarnated souls.

 

 

Causality and karma

If there is a development of the souls, of the selves that incarnate, there must be a causal relationship from one incarnation to the other. The development during one embodiment will have to build upon the preceding one(s). This causality is called karma (from the Sanskrit root kri, which in the widest sense means “do, act”). It concerns the consequences of doing or action, since action is dynamic and the consequences will lead us to the development of an increasingly correct action. Being in itself is, in contrast to doing, rather static and has less to do with karma.

When an incarnated soul acts in such a way that it has a negative or even destructive effect on the order of a population, development will require that such action be corrected. Such a soul must, therefore, learn to act differently and so that its action will increasingly harmonize with a good order.

How will it learn that? It could be that it learns for the purpose in the soul state between two incarnations, but if reincarnation shall have a sense it will also learn from experiences during incarnations. If the soul earlier acted contrary to a good order, it will, therefore, have to learn to act more in harmony with it. It will have to experience what effect its earlier and less developed action had on the population and its order.

Hence the concept of reincarnation is inseparably connected with the concept of karma. The latter concept says that we after unsuitable action will on ourselves have to experience what effect this had on others. This will logically have to mean that if a soul was a perpetrator in an earlier life, it will have to experience what its victim(s) felt. It will be on the victim side in a similar situation.

This is too often understood as “punishment”, which is a limited view. This has nothing to do with revenge or retaliation, but with instruction and learning, with having an educating lesson. After experiencing and knowing what went on in the victims of one’s earlier perpetratorship, one has learned never to act like that again. Calling it “punishment” is a misunderstanding.

This can also be seen as a completion of experience. If someone once was a perpetrator, he or she experienced only one side of the situation, being what the perpetrator felt but not the victim(s). The latter side of the experience is missing and the experience was only “half”. The soul will also have to have “the other half” of the experience. That way, the experience becomes a whole one. The missing part is added to it later and it becomes complete.

In the East, karma is said to be something inescapable. There would be no way to escape the consequences of one’s actions. The growing empiricism from past-life recalls, gathered and gathering from a continuously growing number of recall experiences, reveals another view. Who reaches understanding, regret and conversion before dying in a perpetrator life and, therefore, knows never to do such a thing again, will of course not need to have a lesson on his own body. He already comprehends it! But regrettably most humans only know excuses and justifications for their actions up to the bitter end. Those are the ones who need a corresponding lesson so that they, too, can finally learn and develop.

Is karma unjust? If someone is “punished” (to still use this wrong expression) but doesn’t know for what, of what use would that be? As was shown above one does know for what in the unconscious self, the self of the soul. It is only the conscious self in the head that doesn’t know. On the level of the soul the equation proves right, there the connection is realized and there one nevertheless learns from such an experience.

Let us take the example of a rapist. A man during his lifetime rapes a number of women. Who will then hold it for unjust if he is later reborn as a woman and experiences rape on the own body? Again not as a “punishment”, but as a lesson.

At a first glance it appears especially cruel when a child has to suffer, and that is well understandable. But if the soul of the child had a large number of incarnations before, it is not really a child, but only its body. And if it has (to keep the example above) of all things abused children, can it then really be unjust if it in a new embodiment experiences the same while still being a child? Its victims were children, too! If someone has a better explanation, I would appreciate being informed. The simple rejection of this empirical finding without giving a better explanation is not valid. To take it that easy is unacceptable, because that would involve that a child would suffer without a reason, which would be far more cruel! The latter would be still more true if the reincarnation hypothesis is rejected… In such a case it certainly raises the question, how God can let such a thing happen (see below)!

Here the discussion will for some become difficult to accept, but on the basis of our starting point, which is reincarnation and karma, a systematic connection is viewed. It will be difficult to deny a justice in it, since this unavoidably involves the fact that only the body is that of a child, but not the soul (which even could have had even more incarnations before than the mother had).

Karma is often understood as something negative, but it is, in fact, neutral. Good actions have good consequences, bad have bad consequences.

There is in the East not rarely the opinion that one should not interfere with the karma of another person. One hesitates to help and thinks that the person deserves it. Even though it may actually look like that in this systematic context, such a view is nevertheless wrong. It all has to do with a development towards an order, which we have characterized as “love”. If we intervene and show a love to the suffering, which he himself or she herself before wasn’t capable of, the lesson will be so much deeper. It could through this even take a new turn. Helping is never wrong, but our duty! If the help is accepted and if it reduces or even ends suffering, the one who suffered has really learned an important lesson! And he or she may even not have to suffer more!

Who doesn’t want to help will, instead, easily acquire new karma through an act of omission…

But if the help is not accepted or doesn’t bring relief, we may assume that the one suffering has not yet finished the lesson. Our attempt to help has then not caused any damage, instead it nevertheless was a demonstration of love, which the one suffering will understand later. The attempt was still our duty and it isn’t our fault if it was unsuccessful. Instead it is easily our fault if we refrain from helping.

 

 

Why do children have to suffer?

This world is full of suffering in any possible way. What touches us most is normally the suffering of children. Uncountable masses of children are born into suffering – in areas, where there is hunger, war, epidemics, persecution, misery, poverty, etc., and so on, and so forth… – and they experience no happy minute. Children are born sick, deformed, disfigured and retarded. They are despised and tormented because of their origin or descent. Children are hated already in the womb by raped mothers. Masses of children are born into families, where they have no love but from immature and primitive parents suffer rejection, unwantedness, violence, abuse and even hatred – including lots of children in our Western world. In certain parts of the world children are abused for slave labor.  The medieval and primitive mentality that a girl would be worth less than a boy is still around.

Man years ago I had a lecture in Switzerland. When I talked about such things, a physician said: “I have been around a lot in the world for my profession. I have seen such inconceivable suffering of children that I can no more believe in a benevolent God. What is reported in the media is only the tip of an iceberg,”

How can that be? How can God allow it to happen?

The only answer which gives a reasonably decent explanation is that of reincarnation and karma (see above)! Otherwise innocent children would suffer for no sensible reason and God would be a monster!

This is to me one of the strongest arguments for reincarnation and karma!

 

 

Is karma everything?

Karma is not everything. It can also be for other reasons if we get into painful situations. It happens that we out of unconscious feelings of guilt develop a kind of “self-punishment pattern” and attract unnecessary suffering. We had our lesson but unconsciously react like this: “Who knows if that is enough? I will rather seek to have another lesson, so that I can be sure”. This is, of course, a mistake and for that reason it is so important to uncover and dissolve old feelings of guilt in regression therapy and dissolve them!

Fear tends to attract what we are afraid of. It is a matter of experience that it rather happens to the one who fears than to another, who has no fear. For that reason, fear can bring us into a situation that would not have to be. It is, therefore, also very important to uncover reasons for fears and then dissolve the fears. We should generally strive for casting off our fears. This is often difficult, and then help is welcome.

Yet it would be a great injustice if someone would suffer without a reason. That would be most cruel. If there is any reason for it, suffering is bad enough, but not to the same extent as it would be without a reason.

That there will nearly always be a reason for suffering in no way exonerates the perpetrator! It also no way plays down the suffering! Who sees it differently, has not understood it (or may even “tactically” want to misunderstand it). It means only one thing: The suffering could at least in principle be easier to accept for the one who suffers, if one would know the connection. Or he could take it a bit more in humility, maybe a little like in the splendid example of Jesus: “Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing”. And if the one who suffers doesn’t yet know the connection, he will later (at least after dying) and will then, looking back, see it all in another light. If someone is exonerated, than it is God… (see below: “Why does God let it happen?”).

 

Karma in the Bible

Even though theologians of the Church don’t want to hear the word “karma”, its principle is clearly enough repeated in the Bible!

Gen. 9:6: “Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed…”

Num. 14:18 “The Lord is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” Cf. Deut. 5:9.

The Gnostic Christians here understood: “…third and fourth incarnation”. If the common interpretation is true, this is a heaven-crying injustice, but if the Gnostic one is true, it is just!

Cf. Deut. 24:16: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin” and Ezek. 18:20: “…The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…”

Prov. 22:8: “He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity…”

Job 4:8: “Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.”

Hosea 10:12-13: “Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy… Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity…”

Obadja 1:15: “…as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.”

Mt. 5:7: “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.”

Mt. 6:14-15: “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

Mt. 7:1-2: “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

Mt. 7:12: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Cf. Lk. 6:31.

Mt. 7:17-18: “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”

Mt. 23:12: “And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” Cf. Lk. 14:11 and 18:14.

Mt. 26:52: “…Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

Lk. 6:37-38: “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.”

Jn. 5:14: “…sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”

Rom. 7:9: “For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.”

This was by the Gnostic Christian understood as a reference to reincarnation. That “sin revived” could refer to the revival (as karma) of past actions in a new embodiment.

2. Cor. 9:6: “…He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.”

Gal. 6:7: “… whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

Rev. 14:13: “… and their works do follow them.”

 

 

Why does God let it happen?

The history of humanity is from the beginning a ceaseless history of atrocities and suffering. At all times people became innocent victims of murder, violence, terror and horrors of wars. There were repeated genocides – at Cathars, Incas, Aztecs, Mayas, North-American Indian tribes, etc. … and so on… The Inquisition tortured people of other belief in its chambers of horror. Millions of women were burned at the stake as alleged “witches”. Human beings were enslaved. And lots and lots of more. Such things happen still to day. It seems to have no end.

Since archaic times the same helpless and despairing question echoes in humanity: “Why does God let it happen?” It was asked already in ancient Egypt by Ipuwer. This question is in theology called the theodicy problem (theodicy = defense of God – see an extensive discussion in Chapter 1 in my book Reincarnation, Christianity and the Dogma of the Church; an English translation downloadable here as a PDF file). The theology of the Church has dealt with this question already in medieval times but couldn’t reach a satisfying solution within the frames of its dogma. Therefore, one later gave up and declared that this surpasses the understanding of man. The question was swept under the carpet. One didn’t get further than referring to the evil in the world and the inherent evil in man. This dissatisfying reference can at most explain why there are perpetrators, but fails to explain why people have to suffer under their actions.

The theodicy problem is this: 1. God is omnipotent, 2. God is good, 3. The world is continuously filled with suffering. How can that be made to fit together? Either God isn’t omnipotent, or he isn’t good? Unacceptable hypotheses! What then?

In my opinion there is (at least until to-day) only one satisfying explanation: reincarnation, karma and free will. Early Christianity had two main streams: The Paulinian and the Gnostic Christians. Beginning with the council in Nicaea in 325 AD, at which emperor Constantine made the Church a tool for his worldly power, the Gnostic Christians were regarded as heretics. The last Gnostics in Europe (in Asia there were for some time still the Manicheans) were the Cathars, who in the 13th century were eradicated in a genocide led by the Church. The Gnostics taught reincarnation. In their world concept we are “fallen angels” who once wanted to leave God’s world in order to have experiences, which are not possible there. We wanted to live out our free will fully, even if it would conflict with the free will of others and they would, therefore, suffer from it. This would be impossible in God’s world, because there we were all connected. Who would there cause pain and suffering to another being, would in the same moment feel that pain and suffering himself. Therefore, we didn’t do such things there. We requested from God to be able to live such that there would be no such limit to our free will, set by respect for others. The full acting out of our free will is possible only where it can, if needed, also be done inconsiderately.

Therefore – so the Gnostics taught – God created new worlds. A hierarchy of angels with nine levels came into being, under it a 10th level: That of the humans. Those beings – we – who fell to that level “became souls, which were put into bodies like in prisons”. Under that level there is an 11th one, the level of demons and adversaries.

What is then the fate of the human being? It is on this 10th level in order to develop and learn where inconsiderate living out of free will leads. When we will finally understand how foolish this is, we can climb the Jacob’s ladder through the angelic levels, until we reach final resurrection in God’s world. Some make a detour through the 11th level, which is a kind of hell. There is, however, no eternal condemnation. One has to stay there only until one has reached understanding, regret and conversion.

According to the Gnostic doctrine we would have to later experience ourselves the suffering we cause to others, so as to finally learn to act so no more. It is in principle still like in God’s world, where one – would one hurt another – would feel his pains simultaneously. Here, however, we experience the same with a delay. Not immediately, but later. That is the karma. This way we can inconsiderately live out and “test” our free will, until we understand, how wrong it is to do so without respect for others.

In this Gnostic-Christian doctrine of reincarnation, karma and free will is the so far best and most acceptable solution of the theodicy problem! Then God is still good, because he lets no one go astray. Everyone will at the end, even if detouring on many wrong tracks, return to God’s world. God is omnipotent. That is why he made this way possible as an answer to our own request.

 

 

Have I been a perpetrator, too?

The history of mankind is a so far never-ending story of violence, cruelty and suffering. There have been uncountable perpetrators and there are new ones every day. If there is reincarnation – and that is still the staring point and the hypothetical basis of this discussion – it will on pure statistical grounds be quite improbable that I, of all people, would not have been one. The common way of thinking is: “Certainly not me. If so, then only others”. The logical consequence is rather: “I will surely have been one. If someone never was a perpetrator, then probably another”. And if I had to suffer, this would rather confirm this view, as the above consideration shows.

This should actually lead to a more conciliatory attitude towards our fellow men and women. If someone does anything to us, we can assume that we ourselves once did something similar to others, and that this is the reason why it happens to us. This also follows from the Bible quotations above.

 

 

Or have I been a great benefactor or a famous personality?

Again we have to consider statistical facts. There were and are uncountable masses of perpetrators in the human history (every soldier and every executor is one, too…), but in comparison only a “handful” of great benefactors and famous persons. The latter will most probably be incarnated again to day, and who once was famous may be nothing near it now. But it will on purely statistical grounds be highly improbable that I was one of them. And if I once had been a great benefactor, I would probably have come so far in my development that I would no more need to incarnate…

The much too often repeated allegation that any number of Cleopatras would have surfaced in past-life regressions has no factual background.

 

 

How did it all begin?

As has been described above it – according to the Gnostic-Christian doctrine – began with wanting a complete free space for acting out our free will. Who then became a human being was as a soul still undeveloped and hadn’t yet learned love. That is why he was able to also do evil. He didn’t care what it meant for others. Thus we must learn that this is anything else but indifferent.

 

 

How will it end?

According to the Gnostic Christian and many other doctrines of reincarnation there is an end to it. It doesn’t go on eternally. Everyone will at some point arrive at his last incarnation and not incarnate anew after his death. What is required for this? Obviously that he finally not only understands the unconditional and undiscriminating love, but also consequently lives it.

According to empirical material from actual recall experiences another necessary requirement seems to be that there is no soul left in the world, with which one would still need to reconcile.

There will probably be further conditions for not having to incarnate again, but these two will be the most important ones.

 

 

Is the karma valid for everyone?

After all that has been discussed here, the karma would have to be valid for everyone. It cannot well be expected that souls incarnate and have no karma (except in the very first incarnation). There is no reason to assume that there would be exceptions. Certainly not in view of the logical consequence that if someone suffers, there will be a reason for it, and this will be valid for all of us.

The only case that would seem possible would be that some souls incarnate only once, but don’t reincarnate. But most of us will do the latter. If there would be souls, which are on Earth only once, they could hardly have a karma. And if they would suffer, it would be a suffering without a reason and, therefore, be still much more cruel than when someone suffers and there at least is a reason for it. Here the equation would not prove right.

Cases of voluntary suffering will be extremely rare! But even that is a possibility in exceptional cases. Jesus obviously was such an exception. He took the crucifixion upon himself voluntarily since he knew that his teaching on Earth would be put at such an end by the adversaries. But: Did he really suffer? Christ will have been above all suffering! He will be an exceptional case also in this respect! Only very highly developed incarnated beings are able to take heavy suffering upon themselves, but this will mean that those are the ones who to a large extent stand above suffering.

 

 

Is it allowed to kill?

Jesus said: “Thou shalt not kill!”, “Love your enemies” and also: “If someone hits you on one side, turn the other side towards him”. In spite of that people are killed every day, even by Christians… In Northern Ireland, as an example, Catholics and Anglicans kill each other since decades, and they still feign to be Christians. Very many wars were lead and fought by self-claimed Christians, often with the blessing of the Church. The worst of such atrocities were the crusades! There we taught Muslims what their terrorists to day do against us. Is that a common karma for us?

Karma in agreement with Jesus’ words teaches us something else. It is always wrong to kill, except – as the only exception – if it saves the lives of others. Defense is basically correct, especially the defense of others. But it has to be done with proper means. To kill only in order to save one’s own life seems to go to far, according to karma. Considering that only my body can die, but never my soul, it will really have to be a very special situation to justify that I kill in self-defense. But if it is for saving the lives of others, it will be a different matter. If I can save people only through killing the murderer in the last minute, it is a different situation, since the alternative would be that I let the others die. It must, however, never become an excuse… In this sense a military self-defense will under circumstances be at the limit of being acceptable. However, most wars of aggression are declared as “self defense”… A much greater principle is that of Gandhi: Non-cooperation, civil disobedience. That way he could without weapons bring the whole British occupation of India to a fall!

Just self-defense with appropriate means is one thing. Revenge is another. “Revenge is sweet” – but expensive! The “sweetness” passes soon but a heavy karmic bill is inevitably awaiting you… (unless you in time reach understanding, regret and conversion).