The strength of karma is a million fold more forceful than these ferocious ocean waves.
Cardinal to this law of
karma is the condition or circumstance under which a thought, speech, an
emotion or a deed is executed; for example, deliberate execution of a thought,
speech, emotion or deed, infused with intent and forceful willfulness, geared
towards achieving a desired outcome, conventionally fulfils the requirement for
yielding karmic fruits. It is usually held that the gravity of karmic
consequences is correlated to the following factors: persistence, consistency
and the ferocity of determination; non-display of remorse in the event of an
unwholesome deed, action dispensed towards those with supernormal qualities and
deeds dispensed towards those from whom one had derived favour in the past.
A very persistent and
ferocious deed would amplify the corresponding favourable or unfavourable
karmic consequences, while wholesome or unwholesome deeds dispensed to an
advanced spiritual being, would magnify the corresponding productive or
detrimental consequences.
Indeed, this law of karma
is too simplistic, immutably equitable and exacting that, it is veritably hard
to contemplate that an inundated proportion of men and women have not yet
assimilated this law to their innermost being, and rendered it the governing
authority within the regime of their personal principles; and the golden rule
in their daily operations. Utter mastery and unflinching obeisance of this law
would spare numerous individuals many a heart ache, mental anguish, emotional
turmoil and physical distress. The sympathy about the matter is that, ignorance
cannot render one immune to the dictates of this dependable servant of nature.
The law admits of no concession, no bargain and no
retraction. Its justice is entirely exacting to the point that everyone obtains
the precise proportion of their meritorious or demeritorious consequences; and
such consequences would certainly be reaped with a fair degree of immediacy, or
perhaps in the medium or long-term. Regardless of the time of karmic maturation
and manifestation, one can be assured that legitimate consequences will materialise.
In one of his essays which he referred to karma as The law of compensation, the American philosopher, Rudolf
Emerson, intimated that no one can ever obtain something for nothing; and that
what might superficially appear to be something for nothing is only a
postponement of one’s liabilities; and that in the long run, one is certain to
run into one’s debts. Also, karma is neither punishment nor recompense, but
simply the fruits that have ripened from the choices we subscribe to. Thus it
is stated:
Karma is not punishment or retribution but simply an extended
expression or consequence of natural acts. The effects experienced are also
able to be mitigated by actions and are not necessarily fated. That is to say,
a particular action now is not binding to some particular, pre-determined
future experience or reaction; it is not a simple, one-to-one correspondence of
reward or punishment.... Karma is not a theory that says you do this, you will
get that, whether good or bad. It says do good work, I'll decide when you'll
get good results, when you need
it, and not when you want it.
(PARVESH
SINGLA, The Manual of Life)
A sagacious application of the law of karma can constitute a
formidable remedy of all social, political and economic predicaments that now
beset mankind. For instance, in seeking to derive benefits from a service, one
would first of all conceive a means of effecting adequate payment, in
proportion to the utility derived from the service. Likewise the service
provider would seek to levy only that amount which justifies the value of the
service rendered. When the law of karma emerges as the unanimously acclaimed
adjudicator in inter-human transactions, such that it becomes engraved on
everyone’s conscience with self-enforcing consistency, then a new
socio-economic era will emerge, underpinned by the principle of unpretentious
fair dealing in every arena of inter-human transactions. Under such a scenario,
an individual might be beholden to recourse to legal remedy in protesting that
they have derived more benefits than due in a particular transaction; and
urging the judge to permit them to reimburse that additional share which they
do not consider to constitute their due.
For more writings by this author, please click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment