Karma and disease

[Viraja]

Yajvan ji,

May I attempt? I believe strongly that any action performed without the involvement of the ego quotient will not bear any adverse fruits. This includes actions that harm others, but done without the doer's knowing involvement in it. Thus I believe that, even if the ball bouncing may be annoying to another homeowner, since I do not know about it, I do not accrue any karma in having bounced it in such a manner. Similarly, even if someone were to murder another person, if done out of fear if the other person would harm us, then such an action would not bear negative fruits. This is what I believe.

Thank you.

[NayaSurya]

Hello, I was wondering why some saintly people like Ramakrishna and Ramana Maharshi died from such horrible disease though they lived a pure life, while some people indulge in unhealthly habits and remain healthly.
I'm thinking in musicans like Keith Richards, Lemmy Kilmister and Ozzy Osbourne. Despite they all indulged in unhealthly habits such as smoking, drinking and drugs for around four decades, they're arriving at the age of 70 relatively healthly.
They seem to have supernatural powers to defy the laws of physiology (must be a very good karma) because people who follow their lives say they should be dead now, but amazingly they aren't.

Why such a bad karma for people who came to this world with a pure mind?
Shouldn't the fact of being a saint be de result of good karma from past lives?
And why such a good karma for people who don't follow the dharma?
To indulge in vices should be the result of ignorance from past lives.

You have two children, one in kindergarten and the other a senior in high school. The one child gets a cookie and a nap. The second child is given a very daunting thesis paper to write which will help him gain entrance into a highly regarded college. He suffers, worries...and works a thousand times harder than the child in kindergarten.

Has the second child been wronged because his work was so difficult?

These illnesses are simply the condition of this shell...nothing more. The wise will be able to handle any situation here quite readily, with the knowledge that we are never ill...or in a poor condition...ever.

Our true state of being, and the knowledge of our true condition (which is always 100% goodly) is mercy. Again, truly knowing, no matter what happens here, that we are unharmed is a huge part of Grace and Mercy.

The children such as Ozzy get their cookies, and the yogi may have a crumbling shell, which he will gladly shed.

This world is entropy, everything we do here is mostly in attempts to maintain or build up and prevent that decay. Because of the state of this world, adversity via entropy will continue to occur up until the moment you are removed.

In the end, it's the way this world is meant to be. <3

[saswathy]

Dear friend ,
when we speak of karma ,we do not exactly mean the action , but it is the effect which it gives , the hurt it causes in words , deeds or thoughts to the others . The analogy of ball does not exactly fall in to that category though it annoys the owner. Even in that case also , the owner would come and shout if the action continues for some time .'' every action has an equal and opposite reaction ''.

[Hamzai]

Namaste,

I'm still kinda new to the dharma but I think I can answer this. I get asked this question in various forms all the time. I am of the opinion that the biological body and soul are seperate and having an enlightened soul which creates good karma does not necessarily equal a long healthy life. Nor does having living sinful life equal a short life although it would increase the chances simply due to risky behavior.
You seem to the mindset that a long life in this world is a reward and a short life is a punishment. This is a mistake. You have to remember that it's possible after leaving this life to go to a heavenly place like the abode of the demigods for what would seem to us like many lifetimes before having to be reborn again in another physical body. Who would choose to have a long life here over that? See what I'm saying?

[Webimpulse]

Namaste ale84,

If I may offer another hypothesis...I hope this doesn't confuse you or derail the thread, as it's my intention to offer a reasonable explanation, not to confuse matters further. Anyway...

Yes, saints like Ramakrishna and certain others may have debilitating diseases and/or die young. But not all saints suffer such a fate. I personally can't think of an example where a Hindu saint/guru lived a long and healthy life, but I'm sure they exist.

Also, consider this: musicians such as Lemmy Kilminster and Ozzy Osbourne (I can't vouch for Keith Richards) don't lead the healthiest of lifestyles, but this doesn't necessarily make them bad people. The music they make is a healthy inspiration for many people; even if the artists themselves don't exactly lead virtuous lives, their art has helped many people cope with the pain in their own lives. If you separate the art from the artist, then it can be said that these musicians have done a lot of good, possibly contributing positively to their karma.

Maybe this is a roundabout way of answering your question, but I hope it helps.

[devotee]

Namaste,

a) There have been many Self-realised souls who didn't suffer from any disease and died at his will. My Guru/Param Gurus are such examples and there are many.

b) If a saint is not Self-realised, in whatever manner he is looked upon by people, he must suffer his Karmic effects. Those who are not yet realised but are qualified to take births in higher realms for their onward journey towards liberation, suffer their residual sanchit karma and that is why see many good saints suffering before death.

c) The most plausible reason which I learnt from my Guru on this :

Such people develop very strong sensitivity towards sufferings of other people. These people come to them in large numbers everyday for getting freedom from their sufferings. To alleviate their pain, the Self-realised souls sometimes accept to suffer their part of Karma and thus giving relief to people coming to them.

OM

[ale84]

Hello, Webimpulse

musicians such as Lemmy Kilminster and Ozzy Osbourne (I can't vouch for Keith Richards) don't lead the healthiest of lifestyles, but this doesn't necessarily make them bad people.

You're right, that's why I prefer to use the word "ignorance". I'm not like those fundamentalists who say: "They are evil, they'll go to hell!".
In fact I consider them really good musicans, and I was a huge fan of them in my teenage years.
In 2008 I attended to an Ozzy Osbourne's concert in Argentina and it was great.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

karma is from karman , one then derives kṛta.

• karma = karman = act , action , performance . It comes from the root kṛ defined as to do , make , perform , accomplish , cause.
• So what then is this kṛta ? It is what is accomplished, obtained , gained , acquired. Note both include kṛ .

viraja writes.

any action performed without the involvement of the ego quotient will not bear any adverse fruits. This includes actions that harm others, but done without the doer's knowing involvement in it

To the one outside of the ego and ~ completely realized~ , they operate within the field of natural law ( dharma). What occurs is the best for all ( including the universe).

Now back to this silly ball bouncing. When the ball bounces who can take owner ship ? the owner of the ball ? This ball cannot bounce without the manufacturing of the ball - so all who touched the ball in its making is involved. And what of the material ? From where did it come ? All those that manufactured the rubber. And what of the raw materrials? It comes from the environment. And Where did this environment come from ? The cosmos and all the actions that occurred to finally bring about an earth that could produce the ball, the person, the intent to bounce the ball and the person in the apartment below who gets agitated ( Which in fact is energy also that comes from all the food-stuffs created once again by the universe).

So, who is the doer here ? Who takes full responsibility for the action ? How can it be seen as good or bad ? We (society) assign good and bad. That is why it is so practical to pursue realization. To exist the small-small thinking of good and bad assigned by society and do as the universe does without any thought that is required - then all the actions are in accord with all the laws of natural law.

iti śivaṁ

[Viraja]

To exist the small-small thinking of good and bad assigned by society and do as the universe does without any thought that is required - then all the actions are in accord with all the laws of natural law.

Dear Yajvan ji,

I am interested in the explanation above but I'm not understanding it right. Can you please elaborate on it?

Thanks,

Viraja

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

So, who is the doer here ? Who takes full responsibility for the action ? How can it be seen as good or bad ? We (society) assign good and bad.

Viśvakarman is the 'all doer' of this universe. Some call the principle architect. On each and every level of creation every law of nature , is orderly, structured and in perfect balance. This is the work of this creative intelligence which is inherent in Supreme Being. Who then is the final doer ? That from which karma comes and goes ?

You see, many take ownership of something that does not belong to them. As if they had the ability to 'create' action. They only borrow at best this ability. People (paśu-s¹) are using someone else's power and is therefore a thief.


iti śivaṁ

• The 17th day of September is the day of viśvakarman; any activity anywhere in the universe is connected to viśvakarman.
• paśu - any tethered animal ; humans are considered such, as being tethered to the senses and forgetting their true nature.