Dear divine brother, Please clarify : Our ‘karmic bondage'(sins / vikarma) is reducing by Remembering Baba or by being in Soul conscious stage ? And how it is happening ? or what is happening in subtle way?
Thank you for your question!
You are asking if our “bad” actions, our “sins” could be reduced by remembering God or by being in soul conscious state, right?
Let us start from the beginning, so we could demystify the meaning of “karma” and its need to be “absolved.”
One of the things to understand about the Drama of life is that nothing is “good” or “bad.” It is as it is and it is necessary. That is why the Drama of life, the movie; is beneficial.
The issue is our vision. Let us say that Peter lost his job. Is this “good karma” or “bad karma”?
According to your vision, that is what it will be. Losing a job could be the opportunity to find another “better” job. It could be the opportunity to spend greater time in spirituality, etc.
When we are trapped in the concept of “opening and closing” karmic accounts, we miss the opportunity to live life as we only see “good or bad,” but we are unable to see beyond the thing appearing right in front of our eyes. All actions are related.
Here is the latest realization.
Forget about settling karmic accounts. Free your mind from that dualistic concept.
Become a detached observer instead.
Because a detached observer is beyond the effects of Karma. A detached observer is a soul conscious individual or an individual who knows and understand how to change his vision, his perspective of things in life.
Peter lost his job. If Peter changes his vision by trusting the Drama of life in the understanding that “things happen for the best, as long as I do my best;” then his vision will allow things to change. If Peter’s vision is fixed in “how can I make money now… this is terrible…etc,” then obviously that vision will make Peter’s existence miserable.
A karmic account is the opportunity for us to realize that still we have some inner work to do. Is that “sinful”? 🙂 Some will keep suffering. Others will try to find a way out.
How do we get out?
1) By going through the experience. Some may refer to this as suffering. Others as learning. What is your vision? 🙂
2) By doing an inner work and finding the issues. Usually a lack of acceptance of things as they are due to inner rejections and repressions. This will lead into #3.
3) By becoming a detached observer.
In my experience, any other word that we like to use such as “remembering God” or “yoga” or “meditation,” etc; means only to become soul conscious. However, this soul consciousness is a process and it will lead into being a detached observer, little by little; not all of a sudden.
Moreover, we will become a detached observer when we have resolved our inner issues, that is our emotional problems, our fixed ideas and concepts, our own complexities, our inner struggles, our “baggage,” and are capable of embracing life as it is. This is called inner observation. Inner work on the self.
In my experience, we cannot expect that “yoga” alone will be all we need. As we know, that “yoga” is not the same for everyone: the same power and intensity. Therefore, we will need to observe the self, to become a detective of our inner world to find things which are making us to behave in a certain way. This “effort” will be rewarded through the law of karma as we know and whatever we find will be gone permanently.
Yoga can make us experience what is soul consciousness; but our emotional baggage will bring us down as soon as that yoga experience finishes.
It is a balance.
Thank you for your very good question!
I will give a bit of explanation to your thoughtful question.
First, let us erase that word “sin” from our vocabulary. In the understanding of the “unlimited,” we can see that there is a movie going and actions will be performed which have a consequence. Without those activities, we wouldn’t be able to experience duality and thus, go back to non-duality. It is best to refer to “sin” as “body conscious” activities; for these actions are performed in that consciousness.
In that way, we can erase the idea of “bad” that comes with the word “sin;” for after all; we will experience the fruit of those activities; which as we know; are part of the “eternally repetitive” Drama of life.
A “sin” is the experience of suffering as a consequence of a previous deed. “Vikarma.”
That stage of a “detached observer” also known as “witnessing,” or a “trustee,” or being “karanhar” and letting “karankaravnahar” work through us; we could go through the movie of life without being affected by it. Just observing and enjoying the “show,” the movie.
Therefore, there is no such a thing as “cutting off” sins; for the law of karma will do its work regardless but this time, we will not be affected by it. That is how the “crucifx will change into the experience of being pricked by a thorn.”
Now, here the important point: As we settle our karmic accounts, we will be experiencing that stage automatically, for less things will be able to affect us. BUT, if we practice that stage ( I rather say, experience that stage) then, we will be able to “accelerate” the stage of not experiencing those “karmic accounts” with the same intensity until there is no longer the experience of that karmic account, (it doesn’t affect us) so we are free from it.
Thus, greater experience of the stage of a detached observer, less experiences of karmic bondages. That is the meaning of “cutting off sins.”
In Sakar Murlis, that stage of being a “detached observer” is known as “karmateet.” Brahma Baba mentioned that this stage will be reached at the “end.” However, in avyakt Murlis, that stage of being “karmateet” or a “detached observer” was updated to “living now,” and not just at the end. In this way, we could be experiencing those karmic bondages but feeling them as a “thorn pricking our little finger.”
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.”