Hello life and yoga warriors.
Let’s talk about karma:
Karma is not a word to develop an allergic reaction to.
It is actually the force generated by a person’s actions held in to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences (good or bad) to determine the nature of the person’s next existence.
In other words “What goes around comes around” Yes, take note because we do create the result (good or bad) of our actions.
Generally speaking, people are unaware that even in the New Testament there are references that unequivocally imply reincarnation.
And I want to make clear that, with this affirmation there is not intend to disrespect anyone’s spiritual beliefs.
But, if we live on shade shifting mode, there is no way to make adjustments in order to pursue karma cleansing and find ourselves with our highest version.
The doctrine of reincarnation is only important in (so far) teaching us that we are given many opportunities on this earth to perfect ourselves and work out our salvation.
However to emphasize it without boundaries , has its drawbacks.
It may encourage inertial awareness, an attitude all too often shown by people sitting on a comfort zone, when their focus require certain level of awareness:
Let me give you an example;
“I’ll make it up in the next life”.
Also may cause lack of reality grounding, when
*archetype attachment, becomes heavier than reality.
Example of lack of grounding (that is how I would refer to it, psychologists might address it different).
I was “Alexander The Great” or “Cleopatra” (according to predilection) – all of which is very detrimental to the spiritual life where ego-centeredness has to be got rid of.
If you acknowledge EGO as ” Edging God Outside” will be less difficult to maintain enough awareness and humility to identify the need for grounding and hence get back on track, during a lifetime.
That’s a main reason why I tell my students once they cross the entrance door to the Yoga classroom to leave their ego outside at the hall. Their mats are ego-free.
Which is also a way to warranty their safety following yoga postures alignment cues, without distractions created within a competitive environment.
Karma vs Sins:
Readers of the article entitled
“Emperor, not Pope responsible for doctrine on reincarnation” (Share International, March 1982),
might be interested to know of the following details that made history.
Following P. Andreas’ quotation as to how “the Bible is apparently sadly lacking in this respect.
In fact we may ask if the subject of reincarnation is so important – from the religious point of view – why there is so little mention of it in the Bible”,
the article goes on to state that the few Bible references indicate that from the earliest times supporters and opponents of reincarnation have waged a bitter ‘war’. Very interesting to acknowledge.
We beg leave to disagree with this statement completely – we have never found any trace of such a “bitter war” in the Bible unless the writer meant a bitter war among interpreters of the Bible
– but the subject, at least in the New Testament, was rather taken for granted, just as (keep note) we take and for granted that a healthy tree which has lost its leaves for the winter will get a new crown of leaves in the following spring.
Let us examine the remarks which lead us to this conclusion.
The Baptist or Elias?
The first sign of a taking for granted of the doctrine is found in Matthew, 11:13- 14; 16:13.
When Jesus ask to his disciples
“Whom do men say that I, the son of man, am, (Matt. 16:13) and the disciples answer Some say that thou art John the Baptist, some Elias and others Jeremias or one of the prophets.”
How could Jesus be thought to be any of these except in a past life?
Elias and Jeremias lived centuries before.
As for John the Baptist, since he had recently been put to death, there could not have been a reincarnation, but it seems that some people thought that his spirit could have inspired Jesus.
If people could speak in this way they obviously took the doctrine for granted.
That Jesus is actually asking the question shows he is aware of the doctrine and considers it valid.
Jesus himself tells his disciples who John the Baptist really was in the past:
For all prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come.
He that hath ears to hear let him hear. (Matt. 11:13-14)
So isn’t Elias here, (according to Jesus himself) coming back to earth in the personality of John the Baptist.
This is sustained in Math. 17:12:
“But I say unto you that Elias is come already and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.
Likewise shall also the son of man suffer of them.
The disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. “
There is here no equivocation, no polemic, but the words are from the Master himself. Any better sustaining hint?
As for who he was in the past, Jesus is not interested in discussing it.
He is far more in interested in finding out what his disciples think: “whom do ye say that I am?” (Math.16:15), And the answer of Simon that he is the Christ, the son of the Living God, that nothing else matters, pleases Christ who immediately makes him the corner-stone of his church.
Actually, it does not matter what we have been in the past. We all make mistakes and those should be our best teachers for us to mindfully prevent future negative behavior relapses.
Is good to acknowledge and turn it into learning experience, but not let ourselves activate clinging personality to the past.
No detachment, has its drawbacks.
It may encourage sloth, an attitude all too often shown by people, “I’ll make an effort in the next life”. (Wrong answer, would more be responsible a now or never)instead of dreaming with an uncertain future. Otherwise unhealthy attachments could be detrimental to the spiritual life where ego centredness has to be rid of.
Sorry my friends but the “I was Cleopatra or Julius Cesar” is a no go.
The third reference comes as a question concerning a blind man.
The disciples ask Jesus: Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2-3)
How could a man sin before he was born, unless the sin was committed in another life?
The apostles are not asking what kind of sin resulted in blindness, but who sinned, taking for granted that the act of sinning itself brought about this dire result.
Furthermore, the sin could have been committed either by the man in a previous existence, or by his parents.
This implies both that the sins of the parents are visited upon the children, which is a biblical doctrine, and that the soul exists and therefore pays for the transgressions of previous lives.
Jesus does not rebuff the apostles for asking such a question.
If the doctrine had been alien to his mind, he would have told them that they were talking nonsense.
He simply takes a different attitude.
Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him, (John 9:3)
Basically this implies that the doctrine of karma (and therefore its corollary, reincarnation) is not always understood correctly, for instance the calamities that befall humans should not necessarily be laid at its door.
Superficially we might take the meaning that the works of God should be made manifest as referring to his own healing ministry; that it can be shown that he, as God incarnate, can heal all, even blindness from birth.
However, his answer has several levels of much deeper meaning, one possibly being that the man’s blindness (taking it as a literal physical blindness) was not brought about by sin but by a deliberate choice by the soul for a certain crucial experience necessary for its development. You don’t have to agree with that, but that’s how I see it.
Out of that experience the soul would emerge triumphant through its perfect faith and trust in the Christ, by which could have been meant the external Jesus Christ or as the inner divinity to which Saint Paul referred when he said:
My little children of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you. (Galatians 4:19)
It was a very assertive statement regards reincarnation.
The Inner Man undergoing the quest for his true self.
That the doctrine of karma (and reincarnation) is all too often used as a crude palliative, to resolve problems that appear unresolvable, may have been understood to some extent in biblical times, even as it is nowadays in certain cultures and communities.
This may be gathered from Leviticus where we find the following:
And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor as he hath done, so shall it be done to him.
Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. (Lev. 24:19-20; cf. Ex. 21:24. Deut. 19:21)
Through this Jewish expression of the law there seems to be no room for the transformation of the man, the change of heart and mind that would automatically bring about a different reaction.
Jesus seems to have tried to counteract this notion of an inexorable law that leaves no room for human change of attitude in his new commandment: that ye love one another.
This commandment superseded all the others, and is the law of laws which conveys compassion, forgiveness and grace, and implies the possibility of transformation.
In other words, rehabilitation through resilience was even encouraged by Jesus.
With regards to karma, an interesting passage is found in Luke concerning the Galileans whose blood Pilate has shed in the midst of their sacrifices. (Luke 13:1)
In his commentary, Jesus says:
Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans because they suffered such things? I tell you nay; but except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:2-3)
The implication is that calamity does not occur to some because they have sinned more than others, but that all of us have wrong attitudes, and wrong attitudes lead us into misfortunes of one kind or another.
To change one’s attitude, to transform one’s self, is the whole purpose of the many parables by which Jesus taught his disciples.
The important point of the Gospels’ teachings is the transformation of the inner man, the psychological man.
Later followed and encouraged by Analytical Psychology, name given to the psychological-therapeutic system founded and developed by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961). Carl Jung was the son of a pastor in the Swiss Reformed Church, and many of his relatives were ministers too.
His commitment to knowing the nature of the psyche through direct, personal experience and revelation resulted in the precedence he gave to dreams and visions and the idea of understanding them through investigations of philosophy, religion and literature.
Also in its esoteric sense Jesus’ remark to Nicodemus:
Thou must be born again, cannot be interpreted as referring to reincarnation, but to that inner transformation of man, equivalent to a new birth.
That alone can transmute us into new beings capable of entering into that spiritual state called the kingdom of heaven.
Certainly a new beginning.
Which is the main concern of the Gospels and of Jesus’ teachings.
“No tree it is said can grow to heaven unless its roots reach down to hell.” -C.G. Jung
Glenda Lee Santos; Humble Military and Yoga Warrior; RYT-200 hrs; Criminal Justice, BA; Holistic Practitioner with Foundation in Yoga and Ayurveda.
*archetype- is a perfect example or model of something.
If you have long blonde hair, a sparkly ball gown, and a fairy godmother hovering over your head, you’re the archetype of a fairytale princess.
1. Carl G. Jung: Wounded Healer of the Soul ( Clair Dunne) First edition.
2. Modern Man in Search Of A Soul. (Carl G. Jung and 2 more) First edition.
3. Owning Your Shadow ( Robert A. Johnson) First edition.
5. The Holy Bible ( Old and New Testamens)
Courtesy of Semperlee Yoga Corp.