It appears that at least some who seek or feel that they are have realized an
enlightened state --- and talk and walk within the broad framework of vedic /
hindu / yogic / buddhist / tantric traditions, have very limited understanding
of the types and range of karma within those traditions(1) resulting in odd
pronouncements and claims, as well as a glaring absence of understanding of
what realization and liberation actually mean within the traditions in which
they practice. At times further obfuscated by their critics' lack of such.
The lack of understanding of the distinctions between prarabdha and sanchita
karma is an example. To me, that presents a large red flag -- regardless of
whether I accept the theories of karma, reincarnation, realization, liberation,
etc. That is, if a person has consistently practiced methods with these
traditions, uses the vernacular of these traditions to describe their
experiences, and use criteria from these traditions to claim various
attainments -- then, for me, it is highly inconsistent and strong warning
signal if their understanding, words, experiences, self-appraisals of their
actions and its effects indicate little to no conceptual and experiential
understanding of the distinct types of karmas -- which is perhaps the most
fundamental core factor which affects any realization or liberation within
these traditions.
I can appreciate these inconsistencies and act accordingly(2) without myself
necessarily accepting the theories of karma, reincarnation, liberation, etc).
That is I hold them as hypotheses which, while having some explanatory power,
are not particularly suited to repeated large scale double-blind placebo based
studies. Nor are a lot of other things in life -- so one muddles along as best
they can. Over my life, I have observed a number of interesting points of
possible supporting evidence. All of which I realize may be spurious
correlations and worthless. On the other hand, these have at least kept the
door open on my rational, skeptical mind to the possible validity of these
traditional knowledge theories.
From these traditions' view ("traditionally") if one is incarnate, everyone,
including fully realized, liberated ones. all still have prarabdha(3) karma
that must be lived out. No way around it. Further, every incarnate being is
generating kriyamana karma (karma generated in this life) to the last breath.
And kriyamana karma has or will have its full effect, regardless of ones state,
realized/liberated or not. Bad
kriyamana karma
will have corresponding effects. There is no free lunch, no freebies, no
license to act badly. Kriyamana karma may return quickly, or later in this
life, or simply add to the large stockpile of sanchita karma yet to be taken on
in prarabdhic chunks in future lives. However, with various practices, w
hen identity with tightly bound sense of individuality lessens or ceases,
returning karma may be experienced more as a drop in a bucket than a torrential
rainstorm.
Traditionally, burning off ones karma has nothing to do with this life, that
is one does not burn off prarabdha and kriyamana karmas. It is sanchita
karma, the underlying, hidden from view karma that is burned off (or seeds in
causal body "roasted") -- the mountain of karma yet to be resolved 1) in future
lives, and or 2) through effective practices in this or future incarnations.
(Old MMY story -- MMY: "you all have a mountain of karma". Charlie Lutes:
(apparently assuming he was far ahead of the pack): "M. do I have a mountain of
karma left?". MMY: "No Charlie. You have more like a huge mountain range of
karma left.")
A lot of practices such as those that promise and look towards "support of
nature" and focus on success in worldly life as distinct signs of spiritual
progress, as well as practices such as sponsoring yagyas, etc. are focussed on
reducing the intensity of this current life (prarabdha and kriyamana) karmas.
Not a bad thing in itself. However, i
t is possible one can pursue such practices and feel better, life becomes more
successful, obstacles are removed, etc -- without materially affecting sanchita
karma, and thus not affecting ones progress towards realization and liberation.
And such practices can expand ones identity, loosen the shackles of the mind
and apparently provide a sense of freedom -- which may be confused with real
liberation --- without much affecting the remaining range of sanchita karma and
the need to keep coming back to resolve such past karma.
Traditionally, liberation / realization is not obtained until sanchita karma
is fully burned / resolved / roasted. Thus if someone claims liberation (within
vedic / hindu / yogic / buddhist framework of practices, descriptions,
vocabulary, etc) but has no clue about sanchita karma, caution may be prudent.
(1) And while there are variations of understandings the key points regarding
karma seem fairly consistent
across the considerable number of sects and paths across these multiple
traditions.
(2) as in my quip "Run Forest Run" -- a line I liked in (what I I believe was)
a prior Curtis post (lets call it an homage instead of plagiarism).
(3) Traditionally the intensity of some types of prarabdha and kriyamana karma
can be reduced through various practices but generally not eliminated.
The *only* difference between a "realized" person and someone "unrealized" IMO
is that your karma doesn't bother you as much when it comes back on you,
because there is a little less self to be bothered. I think that the "myth of
having no more karma" probably comes from that -- people in the early,
essentially narcissistic stages of realization realize that when they do
something bad it doesn't bother *them* as much any more, so they begin to
believe the actions weren't bad. "
---
