Being thankful has always played a big part in my life. Whenever I would forget it life would turn dark, then when I remember it everything seemed to go so much better. So thanking God for me has been a sort of undercurrent of magic in my life. It seems to have power.
Then when I hear stories of people in the middle east dancing in the streets and chanting “God is Great” after 9/11, it sort of threw me for a loop and created a puzzle in my mind that I have tried to think about a lot since then.
Does thankfulness for them have some kind of power too, or is it just empty echoes of the illusions of horribly lost souls?
I really don’t believe that God has any hand in people hurting others, but they have it partly right, worshipping and thanking him.
Does that create further bad karma for them, or perhaps contribute energy to a huge evil entity who is only a dark reflection of God?
Of course that would kinda go against the whole idea of the name of God being holy, but we know there are a lot of people who worship the “holiest of holy God” while having absolutely no clue. . .
Any thoughts?
Hi Ether
I don’t like to lump “those people” together as all the same, but when they are dancing in the street and chanting “God is great” what is it they are thankful for? Are they thankful for an emotional satisfaction? For the emotion of revenge, or something similar? True worship and thankfulness to me would be connecting with God thru our practices, being truly compassionate to all, and being a fountain of peace. All else is at best a building of bhakti, or not so best just emoting and actually not showing thanks or worshiping, but acting in an opposite direction. Creating black holes that we need to fill with light. That being said, may God bless each and every one with peace and kindness.
Jai Guru Om
P.S. God has Her hand in everything 
Hi Etherfish,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about this and I will share mine. Apart from God being “everything” in a universal sense, I also in a spiritual sense believe that God is the supreme consciousness of love (and all other divine qualities we can imagine), who is the creator of everything, except what God has given to man, as a co-creator with God, to create himself. So, man has created his own sense of separate ego, and all concepts, energies, emotions and thoughts etc. that are part of it.
I believe that God can only be approached with energies or intentions of a similar nature as God’s own, like selflessness, compassion, unity, universal love of all life etc. All other energies or intentions created by the ego that are based on separation, “we better than them”, wishing destruction on others etc. will just be contained in the energy field of the ego itself, and add to the cloud of delusion. It doesn’t matter if they use the word “God” or not or think that they give thanks to God, which they don’t, they add energy to their concept of God, that’s all.
Hmmmmmmmmm
I had too much evil!
The tsunami was the devil works I saw his face! …he took the most religious people first…It was a major stepping stone for me
Thank GOd I’m over it…
The power of God (within and outward)is far Greater than any evil…all devotees here experienced this…
Mr Balance I guess…its all about balance and final union with God 
Good question. I have a similar question. I have been told… you have bad karma only when you associate/attach a feeling to your action. If you do it without hatred in your heart and without any attachment to the action… no karma is added to you… Is this true?
It goes with what the Gita says… do your duty without expecting anything / attaching any feelings to it… so then if I do wrong… as per society (because it is finally people who have made the laws of what is right and what is wrong)… but have no guilt/hatred/joy/feelings attached, is it OK?
So if a person is truly insane and has no feelings about murdering people because he feels it is the right thing to do, then no bad karma is accrued?
I do believe that if a person has no intention of hurting others, but accidentally kills people, then no bad karma would be attached; I believe it is intent that matters, not feelings.
If the theory of karma is true, (and I’ll speak as if I believe it is, though I am not fully committed) I expect that sacro-pietic arousal (which is what religious emotion is) no more gets you off the hook for doing wrong than, say, sexual arousal does. Of course, the religions might tend to have you believe otherwise…
Neither do I believe that having a clear conscience in wrong action would get you off the hook, despite what some illustriuous yogis claim. I don’t think it is quite so simple. So if you believe that God is telling you to kill the infidels, the polytheists, and you kill the infidels, the polytheists, the fact that you believe that your tribal god-chief has told you so will not make it good and relieve you of the bad karma. Because what you have done is no better than believing that a not-so-advanced chief is god and just doing what he says, even if it is wrong.
Then there is the Thugee cult, which ritually murdered thousands, maybe tens or even hundreds of thousands in India’s past, all in the name of Kali. I expect there were many truly criminal types in that cult, but others less criminal and with very ‘clear’ conscience, in the sense that they believed that they were not doing wrong.
I would expect that such people would be punished for that wrong action in clear conscience, even though it may be done in a sense of duty and in service of ‘god’. Because, in the bigger picture, their wrongness included believing that way, and being able to believe that way, and tending to believe that way. Being able to be that way, and being capable of being turned that way, was already part of their ‘bad karma’.
According to the law of karma as I see it, you are ultimately responsible for what your God tells you to do. The law is automatic and unsentimental, and sacropiety does not pull the wool over its eyes. If your god is vindictive and hateful, you are responsible for keeping that god, and not finding a better one, just as you would be responsible in the civil law for keeping vicious dog that will harm others. Sacro-piety, ‘God made me do it’, carries no more weight in defense of a karmic charge than a full-grown sane adult defending their crime in court by saying ‘I did it because my Daddy tole me to’. Ultimately, the law of Karma says you will be treated as you treat others, and you must not treat others as you would not like to be treated.
Would you like others to kill you because they keep a vicious God who told them to? No. And likewise, you must not kill others because you keep a vicious God who tells you to.
That’s the way I see the law of karma anyway.
As per my belief system God doesn’t directly tells us to do good/bad things. It is the Maya that affetcts us with three qualities - Tama, Raja and Sattva. All our Karmas are either tamasic, rajasic or sattvic. Your Karmas start a chain reaction that affects your life. It is something like this - An electric battery sends current from its positive pole. The current travels all the electric circuit and returns back in the negative pole. Similarly our Karmas are returned back to us in one form or the other. If we perform bad Karmas we get them back and if we do good to people we get it back too. Most of us identify ourselves as a doer of the Karmas and that binds us to its returns. So when “I” do something then “I” get the returns but when this self identification vanishes then results of Karma can not come to us.
Let me ask a sub question here. Law of Karma explains how you got what you have. But how do you explain the relationship between the involved objects. For example, Person A kills person B. Killing somebody was due to past Karma of A but why only B? Why not C, D or E? How you all explain this? To explain this I personally believe on “Law of Runanubandha” but I am interested to hear what you all believe.
Note that these are just my personal views and I do not expect others to agree with them.
I believe that everything is so intimately wrapped that A & B come together because every moment is the entire newness of creation. Trying to understand it in linear time with our finite minds can only hint at the immense simplicity and beauty of such reality. God is A and B, and God is C & D, and God comes together with God and every which way works perfectly, we just don’t perceive it that way. Our skewed perception from a single point of mind puts a false warp on the perfectness of it all. When we think we’re each the end product of creation then most everything else won’t look quite right. So naturally when we make a point of finiteness for the expression of that point to fall back onto then karma occurs. If we have no perceived point of density and are the immensity and freedom of God there is no singular point of expression and nothing singular to stick to. God experiences God and we cease to be a delusion of separateness. But then, I could be all wrong and probably am 
Bipinjoshi wrote:
“An electric battery sends current from its positive pole. The current travels all the electric circuit and returns back in the negative pole.”
Off topic, but being a master electrician, i have to say- the current (electrons moving) moves from the negative to the positive. They got it wrong when the terminology was invented, and it was discovered later.
quote:
“For example, Person A kills person B. Killing somebody was due to past Karma of A but why only B? Why not C, D or E?”
Are you saying why was “B” chosen to be killed? Because of their past karma, either they or people associated with them have something to learn by being killed. In other words, if Jesus had no bad karma, his death was for the purpose of teaching other people. If we are all immortal, then death only has meaning in relation to the living who can’t see that we are immortal.
I hope you are not saying: those who know that all are immortal
are allowed to kill (death doesn’t matter, because we are all immortal).
I get’s complicated if somebody wishes to die - should I then kill him ?
I could imagine many scenarios where we are walking on a borderline.
Imagine a battlefield where a soldier is deadly wounded, no help is
available, the wounded soldier can no longer articulate his wish to die,
Should I then end his life (and shorten his suffering) ?
Karma can explain all situations, but as long as I am not aware
that in some past life I did such and such wrong,
(and therefore I am today in such and such a suffering situation),
as long as I am not aware of my past life, how can karma be
resolved ?
Hi All,
The Law of Karma goes like this, when you are in Maya 1+2 is always equal to 3, like cause and effect, or in Newton’s words, Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction, but once you realize the truth, the Brahman there is no difference between 1 and 2. Once you realize the Truth the person who loves is same as the person who hates you or the person who wants to kill you.
and Ether
the persons who were chanting “God is Great” after 9/11 were just expressions and not feelings from their heart, a glee, a satisfaction of their ego, like your most favourite team in football wins the World Cup and you jump in joy shouting “Thank you Lord”. There is no difference between the two. It has nothing to do with any karma.
P.S. The law of karma is my own understanding and is subject to any comments
bipi said:
For example, Person A kills person B. Killing somebody was due to past Karma of A but why only B? Why not C, D or E? How you all explain this? To explain this I personally believe on “Law of Runanubandha” but I am interested to hear what you all believe.
I thought that simply, it would also “be in A’s karma” to be killed in such a situation. So somehow, the karma of B and A have to come together to make this happen.
What is the law of Runanubandha?
Here is what I think of karma. This is a very simplified view… obviously… it is not this simple I’m sure…
I am not very good at putting down my thoughts… but I will try my best…
When we do something good or bad and we react… we associate a feeling with it. If we do something that has a negative feeling associated with it like guilt or hatred or anger, this feeling will get lodged into out nervous system. Now, if the feeling is short lived, we forgive and forget, that is a small obstruction added to the nervous system… if we hold on to the feeling and sit with a grudge and be angry over a long period… or maybe a lifetime… that is a bigger obstruction. Similarly, with happiness or joy or any positive feeling… it is stored in our nervous system as an obstruction. That is why, during purification… we go through periods of unexplained happiness and feeling of being on top of the world… this is when the positive obstruction is released… and then of course there is the release of the negative obstruction… which makes us sad and depressed.
Now, if we substitute these obstructions for karma… when we do something with a bad intention and attach negative feeling we have bad karma, when we do stuff with good intention and attach good feelings we attach good karma… However… both of these karmas are obstructions… that is why we are told to do things with NO Attachments… no karma… no obstructions.
Obviously, this does not answer the questions if holy wars are correct… or if the job of an executioner is right, or selling sex for money is right… but as per the laws of karma… if done without attachment… it is not wrong…
However… for a normal human, in order to be able to do something like that… you have to believe it is right… it is not a mindless job… so there are feelings attached… some kind of feeling… and that is what will result in your karma… that is what will result in another obstruction to remove… The stronger the belief… the stronger the obstruction… the stronger the karma…
Whew! That lets me off the hook. I’m always detached when I sell sex
Etherfish,
The most palpable sense of thankfulness comes from my center, where I had to give nothing at all just to exist as I do. It’s an absolute acceptence really, which makes everything seem, well, hehe, like a bonus.
I recall visiting a few places when I was younger that was for religious children. The band would come on in this little club and the kids would line up in front and start swaying with their hands up. They would lose themselves in the gentle rock back and forth. Sometimes it would seem like they lost themselves in the intimicy of that act.
Our spiritual practices can combat or resist certain states we don’t really like to experience, but maybe trying to force the states away strengthens them or bares their seed for a later return.
As far as evil goes, I don’t see it. I’m not sure what people consider to be evil. I’ve heard of people who are ‘heartless’ but so is a refrigerator. If the emotional system is disengaged or broken, then that mind has no access to the felt realization of oneness with others. Intellectually they might, but that leaves room for all kinds of violence.
Shanti said:
but as per the laws of karma… if done without attachment… it is not wrong…
Holy mother of the blessed sacrament! Holy god, no, no, a thousand times no!
I’d say that’s a recipe for disaster, and one that has been often followed. Time and time again, cult after cult, we have some variation on the theme that your inner state is enough to get you off the hook for your behavior, whether it’s the Thugee cult strangling you, or a Tibetan buddhist Teacher X not telling you he has AIDS and sleeping with you.
What the Thug and Teacher X have in common is that they may have gained a lot of detachment from your suffering. They may indeed be doing you over with lack of attachment, or devotion.
But it’s really very simple to see that these people are doing wrong despite detachement: despite his ‘detachment’ from giving it to others, would Teacher X have wanted someone to knowingly and secretly give him AIDS? Of course not. His natural ‘attachment’ to life would have kicked in, and he would have given a loud and resounding ‘no’. His inner voice, for the protection of others, was not so loud…
The law of karma is all about symmetry. Sacropietic ‘god made me do it’ doesn’t deceive it, neither does some sort of ‘spiritual’ detachment. It’s all in the Golden Rule; do to others as you are ready and willing to be done to you. These examples are egregious violations of the Golden Rule. Who is made happy being strangled by a Thugee by knowing that the Thugee isn’t attached? What Thugee wants himself or one of his loved ones to be strangled?
Follow the Golden Rule and don’t let it get distorted…
Hi All:
For some related thoughts, see my post here today on conduct, ahimsa (non-harming) and sin: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=1&TOPIC_ID=1553#11706
The guru is in you.
He He He… that was a great reaction David…
I did not say that I agreed with that idea that it is OK to kill… only because humans could not do any of those things without attachment… You can suppress your guilt and make yourself believe what you are doing is right… but that’s it… you need to have a feeling that what you are doing is right… so in that case it is not detachment… you are attached to the feeling of doing the right thing… of killing because God said so… See what I am saying? You cannot kill without truly believing that it is the right thing to do…and hence attaching to the feeling of killing being the truth.
I quote from the Gita Chapter II verse 38…
“Having made pleasure and pain and loss, victory and defeat, the same, engage in battle for the sake of battle; thus you shall not incur sin”
So by the laws of karma… if you can do something without attaching a feeling to it… its not wrong… suppressing the feeling is not the same as non-attachment. The people who can truely non-attach are the yogi’s or enlightened ones… and they would not find it necessary to kill now would they?
He He He… that was a great reaction David…
There are still a few things that bring out my Catholic upbringing…
you need to have a feeling that what you are doing is right… so in that case it is not detachment… you are attached to the feeling of doing the right thing…
Shanti, the problem with that is that the Thugee only now has to feel that he is not attached to the feeling of ‘doing the right thing’ before he strangles you! Which, by the way, probably was true for many Thugees…
You know, if you want to defend the notion that an action is always right because there is no detachment, there is always an ‘out’ for you if you are presented with a counter-example; you can say ‘That person was not really detached, and if he was really detached, he would not have done wrong’.
Which is not better someone defending the claim that everything that you do when you ‘get Jesus’ is OK, by answering counterexamples with ‘Well, that person had not really gotten Jesus, and if he had really gotten Jesus, he would not have done wrong’.
Both defenses are squirrelly and rely on some mystical (and probably mythical) state as a basis for morality, of which there is not necessarily even a clear and definite concept. And right there is the problem. Morality should be grounded and arise from definite, real-world principles, and they should be the right principles at that.
Regarding Krishna talking to Arjuna, are you right that Krishna said whatever is done without detachment is OK? I don’t see it conclusively. The situation seems more complicated than that. But even if it were there conclusively, I would still disagree with it; the inner state of the ‘doer’ can’t be used alone to qualify an action as moral.
What is true is that right inner states do tend to produce right actions. But there is a crucial difference between ‘tend to produce right actions’ and ‘qualify all actions as right’.