“Truly, one becomes good through good action, and evil through evil action.”
—Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 3.2.13
“Karma” is not fully understood.
Karma means “action” and from that word, we could establish a system to define what is “good and bad.”
If we do “good actions,” we will receive “good things.”
If we do “bad actions,” we will receive “bad things.” Or in religious words, If we do “good,” God will reward us. If we do “bad,” God will punish us.
Here comes the controversy…
Are lies “bad”? 🙂
What about “white lies”? Not bad…huh?
Is to lie an “action”?
Then, if to lie is not action, why is it “bad karma”?
Framed in “bad actions,” “good actions” and “neutral actions” we forget about the underlying force behind any action or thought.
That is our intention.
It is so evident that the intention of a lie is what makes that lie “good” or “bad.”
“The law of Karma” as it is mostly explained, brings by necessity the labeling of some actions as “good or bad.”
That is inaccurate.
“The law says, we must stop on a red light while driving. If we don’t do that, we will be punished by paying a steep fine.”
In that “black or white” statement, there is plenty of “life in between” that could happen: The red light may not work properly, there is an emergency in the road, someone’s life is in danger, etc. There will be plenty of scenarios but our intention is the driving factor for experiencing the return of our activities.
In life, there are those individuals who will stop on a red light no matter what happens around them. Their belief is to be “righteous” by following words to the dot.
The irony is that we do not follow life and its changes, but words and their “static reality”…
An action performed by itself does not determine how life will give a return. Please experiment with this. Don’t merely accept it.
As expressed many times already, life is not interested in complying with our petty “black or white” morality.
Intentions hide behind actions.
Someone may say “ to rape someone is bad. Rape is a bad action.”
Rape is a sexual act by force. Notice the intention of the action: Force, abuse, domination, selfishness.
Q:Is the sexual act in itself “good or bad”? 🙂
A: Depends on your belief.
Life is not about beliefs, it is about intentions.
A sexual act is neutral until the intention of the “doer” arrives.
It is the intention what gives the quality of that action and thus the return.
To be continued….
Thank you for your great question!
Your questions require answers with a higher notch of depth… Here we go… 🙂
We probably need to realize that the only thing that we have the responsibility to understand is the self. God in relationship with us becomes an incentive, a source of inspiration and knowledge. Those things which God provides are meant for self realization, not to discuss if God is this or that.
I enjoy when I see the reaction of people when I say something like “God is omnipresent but also a soul…” 🙂
That will be the “highest manmat” for some, equivalent of receiving hell forever… 🙂
Caught up in words…
Please be mindful that those words are plain definitions. If we define God we cut off the experience that we may get. Many think that because we see BapDada then we “know God.” For some bhakti individuals God is equivalent to seeing Dadi Gulzar, for others, equivalent of Brahma Baba and yet for others, they just visualize a point of light in the subtle body of Brahma Baba who in turn is “loaning” Dadi Gulzar’s body. Describing that, they call that description “God.”
None of that gives the experience of self realization. As the murli mentions, “very few will know God as He is.” Please remember that. More concepts we use to try to define Him, the further from the truth we will be, because words are in the realm of duality and God is beyond that.
On your question: “Action is equal to equal and opposite reaction. If this is true then deities must also be getting the reaction for their actions.”
Sure. But it is “neutral” for there is no duality and… there is entropy so the quality of those activities will diminish until it gets to the point where it loses neutrality and then we have “good and bad actions.”
On your last questions about “karma,” “akarma” and “vikarma.” According to the sanskrit dictionary, we have “karma” as “action,” meaning “doing something,” then we have “akarma,” meaning- without performing actions (detached observer) and then we have- “vikarma,” as “sinful” actions. (I would suggest to use the word “dual action” rather than “sinful” for the “bad” connotation that this word brings.)
Karma can be neutral when there is a return without duality- Golden age.
Karma could be “sinful” when there is duality. The deep significance of that is once we understand duality, that an apparent “good action” has its counterpart of “bad” and viceversa. For example: I think I have done a “good action” by paying for the school tuition of a child. Now, because of that, this child experiences being beat up at school by “bullies.” As you can see, there is nothing “pure” good.
Akarma is the “doing” of actions of ego-less beings. Doing without doing. This is what BapDada calls: “doing for the sake of it.”