Harbottle T.B. - Answer: Difference between revisions

  | read links = [[Lucifer/Vol2/Text|Electronic journal edition]]

Your correspondent, and my critic (or perhaps I should say the critic of the officers of the T. P. S.), should, I think, remember that, unless he is writing with an authority to which I lay no claim, he is using a somewhat strong expression in speaking of my view of the operation of Karma in Re-incarnation as a “glaring error.”

I can only say that, for my own part, I should be glad of an authoritative statement from the Editors of Lucifer, but, meanwhile, I will endeavour to show the grounds upon which I hold the view objected to by J. C. V. P.

It is always easy to take a paragraph away from its context and apply a wrong meaning to it, and I can understand that, taken by itself, the paragraph quoted might convey the impression that I was accusing the law of Karma of being an unjust law. I do not think I need defend myself from any accusation of having to this extent distorted one of the “basic truths” of Theosophy; and yet unless this is the meaning of J. C. V. P. I fail to see the ''raison d'itre'' of his criticism.

If J. C. V. P. will turn to p. 3 of the same paper, he will read in the second paragraph, in reference to the Devachanic state, “It is purely a state of bliss, in which man receives compensation for the undeserved misery of his past life.”<ref name="v2-p415-n1">Quite correct; but it is not the injustice or mistakes of Karma which are the causes of such “undeserved misery,” but other causes, independent of the past Karma of either the producer or the innocent victim of their effects, new actions generated by the wickedness of men and circumstances; and which arouse Karmic law to fresh activity, i.e., the punishment of those who caused these new Nidânas (or causal connections), and the reward of him who suffered from them undeservedly.</ref>

To be consistent, J. C. V. P. should object to this also, yet I have herein only embodied the idea which I have gathered, and I believe accurately, from one whom I venture to look upon as an authority. I appeal to the Editors of Lucifer to uphold me, or to contradict me; in the latter event my whole contention falls to the ground.

It is, however, my conviction, that this statement as to Devachan is not a glaring error,<ref name="v2-p416-n1">Explained in this sense it is not. – [Ed.]</ref> and that being so I contend that the paragraph objected to by J. C.V. P. is a natural corollary to the other. Undeserved evil in any particular incarnation, is injustice, so far as that incarnation is concerned If this be, in the opinion of J C.V.P., the working of the Perfect Law – in itself, pure Justice – with hitches and flaws, etc, so be it; I prefer to take the broader view and to believe that not in one life, or in two, but in the numberless series of lives through which the Ego passes, full justice is done, and full return made for evil as for good. If this view were not the one to which I have given expression throughout the paper, J C.V P. might have some basis for his selection of the paragraph he criticises, but I deny that, as it stands, his charge has any validity.

J.C.V.P. asserts that I have forgotten “that a portion of Karma may lie over through several lives." If he will read my paper again (a process which might be advantageous to his understanding of it) he will see that on p. 4, in speaking of the Karma generated by a murderer and his victim, I refer ''expressly'' to this very point But surely if bad Karma can be held over, a man may be said to be unjustly treated in any given life, as justice punishes as well as rewards, and the absence of merited punishment is consequently the absence of justice. The very point which J.C.V.P. suggests as the reason for condemning my paragraph is its absolute and complete justification. Further, if bad Karma can lie over why not also good? so that the other side of the medal presents the same aspect. ■

T. B. Hartbottle.