Gita key verses course 14 – What is karma? Why do bad things happen to good people? – Gita 4.16-18

Hare Krishna!
So,
Karmano yapi bodhavyam
Bodhavyam cha vi karmanaha
Akarmanas cha bodhavyam
Gahana karmano gati hi

So Krishna is speaking here about the concept of Karma, and Gahana karmano gati hi—the moments of Karma are very difficult to understand. Therefore, Arjuna, try to understand what is Karma, what is Akarma, and what is Vkarma.

So today, we will discuss two things: What is Karma, and why do bad things happen to good people? “Why do bad things happen to good people?” is something we have briefly discussed earlier in 2:47 about destiny, and we will go a little deeper into that. But the main focus will be on the concept of Karma.

Now, in the PowerPoint that you have with you, we will first look at what the meaning of the word Karma is. The word Karma can have four distinct meanings. This is slide 4. Slide 4 is that. So we will be discussing verses 4, 16, and 17. These three verses we will be discussing, and we will focus on the idea that understanding Karma, as Krishna says, “What is Karma?”—that is very difficult to understand.

So, the word Karma can have four distinct meanings. One is:

• The first meaning refers to the action that we do.
• The second refers to the reaction that we get for our actions.
• The third refers to the system of action and reaction.
• The fourth refers to a particular kind of action.

Let me explain these four meanings. At a basic level, Karma refers to what we are going to do—our actions that we have to do. Everyone, when Krishna says, “You have a right to do your work,” it means Karma literally means work. “Karma Yoga” or “Karma Yogi” refers to those who identify themselves as people who do work. So, Karma means work, or Karma means action.

Interestingly, Karma also means reaction. We all have to suffer our own Karma. Sometimes we may use the word “the reactions of our Karma,” but sometimes we shorthand it and say, “It is my own Karma coming back to me.” It means our Karma coming back to us as reactions, or sometimes people say, “It must be in my Karma.”

Now, if Karma only refers to the actions that we do, then what does it mean when people say, “It must be in my Karma?” Karma is not just the actions that we do; it is also the reactions that we get. So, Karma can refer to the reactions we get, and then Karma can also refer to the system of action and reaction.

Each one of us is under the law of Karma. We may say the law, the principle of Karma, is infallible and inexorable. No matter what we do, we may be clever or sneaky enough to escape the law of the land, but nobody can escape the law of Karma. That is the system of Karma, based on the Karma that we have created, and under the divine vision, we all get the results.

Now, moving on, the fourth sense is that there are three different kinds of Karma:

1. Karma
2. Vikarma
3. Akarma

Within that, Karma is one kind of Karma. Another word for Karma is Sukarma. Sukarma means good work—prescribed work or work that is virtuous, work that will give us good results. So that is Sukarma.

Vikarma is the opposite of what we are meant to do. We could say immoral, harmful, destructive, or anti-scriptural work. And then, Akarma, in this context, refers to a work that will not produce any reaction. I will come to that a little later.

Let us focus on these two points right now. The word Karma has multiple definitions. When we understand these multiple definitions, we can understand that actually, when we refer to Karma, we instinctively gravitate toward a particular meaning. What that meaning is may not always be the accurate meaning.

In language in general, words often have multiple meanings. Sometimes, some words can have even opposite meanings—they are called “contronyms.” Contronyms are words with opposite meanings. For example, consider the word “discrimination” in English. Discrimination at one level has a very negative connotation (e.g., there should not be any gender or racial discrimination). But in another sense, discrimination can also be a positive word where the capacity to make necessary and valid distinctions is valued. For example, someone is a “discriminating art critic,” meaning the person can distinguish between good and poor art.

Just as words can have different or even opposite meanings, the word Karma can have multiple meanings. When we use the word Karma, we need to carefully understand the context in which it is being used.

Now, in English, the word “run” is known to have the largest number of meanings. For example:

• “The car is not running.”
• “The water pump is not running.”
• “He is going to run for elections.”
• “He does not run fast enough to ever participate in athletic competitions.”

Here, we see the word “run” being used in different ways, but we immediately understand which meaning is being used.

When we come to scripture, we are often dealing with a language we do not normally converse in, so we may not always get the sense of the context.

When the Bhagavad Gita uses the word Karma, we need to look at the context to understand its meaning.

When Krishna is telling Arjuna, let us look at the 4th slide now (actually, the 5th slide): “The Gita on Karma,” we need to understand what sense the word Karma is being used. It is primarily used in the first sense, but sometimes in the fourth sense as well.

Karmanneva adhikarasthe: This means, “You have a right to do your work.” Here, Krishna is using the word Karma in the sense of the right course of action, the responsible right thing to do.

Now, if you look at this context, and consider the word kim karma kim akarmeti kavayo apyatra mohitaha, the meaning is: “What is action, and what is inaction? Even the wise are bewildered about this.” Krishna says, Tatte karma pravakshami adgyantva moksha se asubhad—”Now I will explain to you the concept of Karma, and knowing this, you will be freed from inauspiciousness and know which course of action to follow so that you can avoid getting trapped or bound.”

So now,
what is Krishna actually saying here? When he says, if we take the literal meaning of the words karma and akarma, here karma refers to the right course of action (action), and akarma refers to inaction.

Now, even a child can tell whether someone is doing an activity or being inactive. If a child wants to do some mischief, the child might look at their father or mother, sitting on a chair with their eyes closed, thinking they will not notice. The child then might proceed to do the mischief. So, even a child can understand whether someone is active or inactive.

If a child can understand this, then why would the wise be bewildered? The literal meaning does not make sense here. The literal meaning, or the first meaning of karma, is action, and akarma is inaction. If you take this meaning, the whole idea becomes meaningless—why would the wise be bewildered?

But what it actually means here in kim karma kim akarmeti (what is the right course of action, and what is inaction?) is: what is the action that will lead to a reaction, and what is the action that will not lead to a reaction? Akarma here refers to an action that does not lead to any reaction.

Let’s look at the next meaning of the word akarma.

So akarma is the opposite of karma. It can refer to action and no action, but akarma can also refer to action that does not produce any reaction—action that does not produce any reaction.

Now, why is this a major concern for Arjuna at this stage in the war? Because in the first chapter, Arjuna says, “How can I attack or kill my own relatives? If I do that, I will be ruined by it, so I cannot do this.”

Therefore, what is he saying? He wants to know what is the right course of action—what is it that he should do? He does not want to get entangled by doing wrong actions because then he will face wrong reactions, which will keep him bound.

So, a major concern of the Bhagavad Gita is to act in a way that does not entangle. When Krishna is telling Arjuna which actions will entangle and which actions will not, karma here refers to entangling actions, and akarma refers to actions that won’t entangle.

So, akarma is action that is non-reactive or non-entangling. Arjuna wants to know, “What is akarma? What should I do so that I will not be bound?” Krishna is telling him that it is not so simple.

At first, Arjuna thinks that if he fights, he will kill, and if he kills, obviously, he is doing terrible karma, and there will be a reaction for that. If he does not fight, he thinks there will be no reaction, and that way he will not be bound. Arjuna is thinking in terms of the literal meaning of the words. He believes that fighting will be entangling, while not fighting will be non-entangling. But Krishna is telling him, “This is not that simple.”

What is the right thing to do? What is not the right thing to do? Even wise people are bewildered about this. Why are they bewildered?

What determines whether we get a reaction to an action is not the action itself, but the intention behind that action. The intention behind that action. Let’s look at the next two verses, 4:18, which is one of the most confusing verses in the Gita, especially if you look at it from a literal perspective.

He says here: In the performance of action, one who sees that there is actually no action being performed—meaning, in the performance of action, when one sees that there is no action that will produce a reaction, and in the non-performance of action, there is actually a reaction that will come—sometimes, we may not get reactions even by doing something, and sometimes, by not doing something, we may still get reactions.

One who can perceive this is a wise person. Such a person is well-situated, well-engaged. This person is a variant of the word yoga, which means “the process that connects”—one who is connected. That person is well-connected or engaged, and they can do all kinds of work while remaining spiritually connected.

So Krishna is telling Arjuna that one result of knowledge is that such a person is buddhiman—knowledgeable, wise, and intelligent.

One characteristic of intelligence, expertise, and knowledge is the ability to see beyond appearances. For example, consider the current threat of the coronavirus all over the world. A person who doesn’t know about the threat of the virus might see someone sneezing or coughing and just think it’s an ordinary cough. But someone with knowledge may consider, “Is this due to that infection? Do I need to keep a safe distance from this person? Does this person need to be checked?”

The more knowledge we have, the more we can see things clearly.

Now, we can understand this very easily. It’s like in the stock market. Suppose a person from a remote tribe, who has no idea of how modern finances work, comes to the stock market. He sees hundreds of people sitting in front of giant screens, watching a line on the screen crash down. Everyone reacts with alarm, saying, “Oh no!” The person from the tribe wonders, “What happened? It’s just one line going down on a screen. Why are you so worked up?”

To an uninformed eye, it is just one line going down. But to the knowledgeable, informed eye, there is much more happening. People may have lost millions of dollars because of that movement. So, we don’t just see with our eyes; we see with the knowledge that helps us make sense of what our eyes see.

This is one understanding of knowledge—a knowledgeable vision. Krishna will later talk about this as having the “eyes of knowledge.” So, one result of seeing with knowledge is that we can see deeper than what ordinary people can see. But with the eyes of knowledge, Krishna is saying, you will not only see deeper than most, but you will also see the opposite of what is perceived by the simple eye, the unaided eye.

For example, some people may appear very confident, but beneath that confidence, they might actually be bluffing. They could be very insecure with extremely low self-esteem. They may walk with swagger, but internally, they are very insecure. If we know the person well or understand human psychology, we can recognize that this outward confidence is actually a cover-up for a lack of confidence.

Similarly, people who have the least respect for themselves are often the most agitated when others don’t respect them. So, if we know the person or are good at reading people, we can understand that their swagger doesn’t indicate real confidence. It is, in fact, a facade for insecurity.

On the other hand, some people may seem humble and unassuming, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are unqualified or shy. They might be small in stature, have a soft voice, or a gentle expression. When they speak, they might speak eloquently and strongly. We then realize, “Wow, this person has a lot of inner power.”

What happens here is that appearances can be completely deceptive. Krishna is saying that similarly, what seems to be entangling may actually not be entangling, and what seems to be non-entangling may be entangling. You need to see properly, understand what the actual entangling actions are, and what actions do not entangle. Based on that, you can act properly.

Now, why is this concept of karma being discussed in the Bhagavad Gita at this point? Because Arjuna is at a crucial point where he must decide what the right course of action is for him. Should he fight the war, or should he not fight the war?

In this section, we previously discussed how Krishna has descended into this world, how he has given spiritual knowledge, and how he has created various paths to access him. Verses 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 talk about how he descended and created a system of parampara (the tradition of spiritual knowledge). Verses 7.8 discuss how he descends to establish dharma, and verse 4.11 talks about the different paths by which people can come to him.

What does this mean? Krishna has provided us with paths to rise toward him. This is true, as the scriptures describe. But it is still up to us to take the scriptures as a guidebook and make our own decisions about how to act.

Krishna is telling Arjuna that he must learn to act responsibly. Now, let’s revisit verse 4.18 to understand it better. The verse says, “Karmanya akarmaiha pashed,” which means that even when you perform an action, you should see that there is no reaction to that action.

To explain this, let’s look at an example. Suppose a soldier is fighting a war on behalf of the country. The soldier may kill many enemy soldiers. Normally, killing a human being is considered heinous, but in a war, if the soldier kills an enemy, he might receive a bravery award from the state. The same soldier, however, comes back home and gets angry with his neighbor, shooting him. In this case, the soldier will be punished because there is no just cause behind this action.

In the first case, when the soldier is fighting for the nation, there is no immediate selfish intention, so there is no negative reaction. However, in the second case, where there is an act of personal aggression, there is a serious reaction. This illustrates how karma works differently depending on the intention and the context.

Now, Krishna also says, “Karmanya akarmaiha pashed akarmani chikarmaiha.” If there are riots and the police remain silent, they are equally responsible for the consequences, even though they did not take any action. Their inaction in such a situation makes them culpable. The police are meant to protect the innocent, and if they fail to act during a riot, they will be held accountable.

Similarly, if a doctor knows that a patient is ill and fails to give the necessary treatment, it is considered a criminal neglect. This example emphasizes that inaction can also lead to serious consequences.

In Arjuna’s case, Krishna is telling him that, as a Kshatriya (warrior), he has a duty to fight. If Arjuna does not fight, he will be held accountable for his inaction. Therefore, Krishna advises Arjuna to take responsibility and fight in the war.

Now, let’s shift to the next part of the discussion, which focuses on the broader concept of karma. While we discussed how to choose the right course of action, another philosophical question arises: Why do bad things happen to good people? Krishna himself acknowledges the difficulty of understanding karma. He says, “Gahana karmano gati,” meaning that the workings of karma are difficult to comprehend.

Karma suggests that we have had many lives in the past, and every action we take is like sowing a seed. The fruit of that seed will eventually come, and we must experience it. In simpler terms, the “kitchen version” of karma is: whatever we cook, we must eat. If we cook badly, we will have to eat the bad food. We can’t throw it away. This metaphor highlights that the consequences of our actions, whether good or bad, are inevitable.

Moreover, our actions, thoughts, and intentions shape our consciousness. If we constantly engage in negative actions—such as resentment, envy, or irritation—that shapes our mind in a negative way. If we continually indulge in sensual pleasures without control, our desires grow stronger, and we become tormented by those cravings. We are left dissatisfied and constantly agitated.

Karma has two consequences: the external results, which are the fruits of our actions, and the internal impact on our consciousness. The external results may come at different times, which is why karma cannot be understood as a simple cause-and-effect system. Sometimes, a good action might have negative consequences due to past actions, or someone might be experiencing the effects of bad actions done in the past while doing good now.

This is why we should not simply say that someone who is suffering is suffering because of their karma. Krishna himself acknowledges that the workings of karma are complex and difficult to grasp. He says, “Gahana karmano gati,” indicating the complexity of understanding karma.

For example, if someone is suffering due to an illness, it’s not always clear that their suffering is the result of their karma. In the case of the coronavirus pandemic, for instance, we cannot claim that everyone who is suffering from the disease is paying for their past karma. The focus should instead be on the dharma of the relief giver—the responsibility to provide help and alleviate suffering.

In the Srimad Bhagavatam, there is a story about King Pruthu, who faces a natural catastrophe in which all the supplies on earth dry up. The citizens come to King Pruthu and beg for help, explaining that their stomachs are burning due to hunger. At that moment, King Pruthu does not say, “This is your karma, you are suffering because of it.” Instead, he takes responsibility and acts to relieve their suffering.

In the story of King Pruthu, he takes action because it is his dharma to provide for his citizens. He acknowledges his responsibility as a king and works to ensure that his people are no longer suffering. He goes to the earth and urges her to change her ways and provide the necessary resources. There is a detailed account of how the earth responds, supplying what is needed for all living beings, but the key point here is that when someone is in distress, the principle of karma is primarily used not for judging others’ past actions, but for deciding what we should do in the present.

Karma is meant to guide our own actions, not to judge the actions of others. Why is this important? Because the past is complex and often beyond our understanding. We should see people from the perspective of the present moment, based on their actions and circumstances in this life. If we start thinking that someone’s suffering is purely the result of their past karma, we may become cold-hearted. For example, if a small baby is crying, should the mother think, “The baby is crying because of past karma?” No, the mother’s responsibility is to take care of the baby. Her dharma is to provide love and comfort. Even with the best care from both parents and medical professionals, sometimes a baby may experience pain or illness that is difficult to cure. In such cases, we accept the situation as destiny, but the focus should remain on what we can do to help in the present moment.

Moving on to the next point, we must understand that suffering and evil can have multiple causes. There are immediate, remote, and ultimate causes. Let’s look at this in more detail.

Consider a situation where someone becomes infected with a virus. The immediate cause of their sickness is the virus itself, but that’s not the only cause. For example, two people in the same family might both get infected, but one becomes very sick while the other does not. This could be due to different immune responses, but sometimes the outcome doesn’t match what we would expect. A person with a stronger immune system might still get sicker than someone with weaker immunity. For instance, I know of a friend who had heart disease and was told he would not live for more than 2-3 years. But this friend is still alive after 20 years, while the doctor who treated him passed away from heart failure 15 years ago. This shows that the immediate cause—whether it’s an infection, illness, or condition—is not always the full explanation.

Beyond the immediate cause, we also have remote causes, which refer to our past karma. For example, if someone contracts malaria, it’s usually because they’ve been bitten by a mosquito. In a household, several people might be bitten by mosquitoes, but only one person might get malaria. While immunity could be a factor, it’s not always the determining factor. Sometimes a person with weaker immunity doesn’t get sick, and someone with stronger immunity does.

Medical science has made remarkable advancements over the years. We know much more now than we did a few hundred years ago. However, even within the field of medicine, there are still mysteries or what some might call medical miracles. For example, why does the same medicine work for some people but not for others? Why do some healthy people die suddenly, while others who are expected to die live on for many years? These are exceptions that don’t always fit into our established understanding.

This is not to undermine mainstream scientific knowledge or medical practices. We accept the solid foundation of medical science, but it is important to also recognize the extremities, where knowledge doesn’t seem to work as well. Scientific knowledge advances by exploring these boundary conditions—the points where existing knowledge doesn’t fully explain or solve a situation. We use what we know works, but where it doesn’t work, that’s where we can push forward and expand our understanding.

Take the history of physics as an example. Newtonian physics worked well for objects at the human scale, with the tools available at the time. It became the foundation of classical physics. However, as our instruments advanced, we began exploring the microscopic and macroscopic levels. At these extremes, Newtonian physics didn’t hold up. This led to the development of quantum physics for the microscopic level and Einstein’s theory of relativity for the macroscopic level. The idea is that while the immediate cause is important, it’s not always the complete cause. When things don’t add up, we look deeper.

Similarly, in the case of suffering, the immediate cause might seem clear, but there are also remote causes, such as one’s past karma, that we must consider. And at the deepest level, there’s the ultimate cause: disconnection from Krishna, or spiritual forgetfulness. This disconnection is the root of all suffering, as it leads to a lack of understanding of who we are and what we are meant to do.

In any given situation, we address problems at different levels. For example, when we ask why bad things happen to good people, it could be because, while they may appear good right now, their past karma is still affecting them. The immediate cause of their suffering might be small, but the remote cause, which is their past karma, could be significant.

Think of it this way: in some cases, the immediate cause might account for only 0.1% of the situation, while the remote cause could account for 99.9%. For instance, a person may be very cautious, following all the necessary precautions to avoid infection. However, in a tired moment, they touch something in a public space and unknowingly bring the virus into contact with their face. This small mistake could lead to an infection, even though the person is generally careful and good. On the other hand, someone who acts recklessly might avoid any consequence, which demonstrates that the effects of our actions are not always proportional to the immediate cause.

This percentage, representing the weight of immediate versus remote causes, can vary in different situations. Some situations might be heavily influenced by past karma, while in others, the present actions might have a stronger impact.

As we move forward, it’s important to understand that there are two extremes when it comes to identifying the cause of suffering. One extreme is to focus only on the immediate cause, and the other is to focus only on the remote cause. While it’s tempting to simplify by attributing everything to one cause or the other, this approach misses the complexity of life. The immediate cause alone is not the full story, and focusing only on the remote cause overlooks the role of present actions.

If we focus only on the immediate cause of suffering, we become short-sighted, failing to see the bigger picture. On the other hand, if we focus solely on the remote cause—such as past karma—we may become hard-hearted. This means we might fail to acknowledge the suffering of others, seeing it only from the perspective of past actions and forgetting that people could be victims of present circumstances. From this life’s perspective, suffering can seem deeply unfair, and we must respond with compassion, understanding that people deserve to be cared for.

We need to avoid both extremes: being short-sighted and ignoring the deeper causes, or being hard-hearted and detaching from the reality of people’s present struggles. Instead, we must strive for a balanced perspective, where we take appropriate action based on a holistic understanding of the situation.

This balanced perspective involves addressing both the immediate and remote causes of suffering. Sometimes, the immediate cause requires direct intervention, while in other cases, we might not be able to change the remote cause. In these situations, we learn to accept and live with what we cannot control.

The next concept, which I will explore in more detail in a future session, involves three potential approaches when facing difficulties: tolerate, mitigate, and immigrate.

1. Tolerate: If the primary cause of suffering is beyond our control—like living in an area with unbearable weather—we must learn to tolerate the situation. There is little we can do to change it, so we accept it as part of life.
2. Mitigate: When the immediate cause can be addressed, we work to mitigate the suffering. For example, during an epidemic like the coronavirus, we may need to adjust our activities to limit exposure. If the cause of the suffering is due to external negligence or malice, such as government mismanagement or reckless behavior, those in authority should act to correct the situation.
3. Immigrate: In cases where the situation is not conducive to our growth, we may need to “immigrate,” meaning to move out of harmful conditions—whether that’s physically moving or, more spiritually, transitioning from material consciousness to spiritual consciousness. Ultimately, we seek to leave the material world and attain a higher state of being, reconnecting with our spiritual purpose.

By understanding these three responses, we can approach life’s challenges in a more constructive way. The principle of karma helps guide us in determining which approach is best suited to each situation.

At the core of Krishna’s teachings, particularly in the Bhagavad Gita, is the idea that understanding karma will help free us from inauspiciousness. Inauspiciousness refers to those actions or mindsets that unnecessarily complicate our lives. By gaining a deeper understanding of karma, we stop exacerbating our problems and start moving toward liberation.

Regardless of whether we tolerate, mitigate, or immigrate, we must remember that every situation is an opportunity for spiritual growth. Each challenge is an opportunity to understand ourselves better and come closer to Krishna. This perspective helps maintain a positive mindset, even when life seems full of negativity or confusion.

The Bhagavad Gita doesn’t aim to prove the law of karma. It simply accepts it as a fundamental truth. Rather than focusing on why bad things happen to good people, the Gita focuses on what good people should do when they face adversity. Krishna advises Arjuna to act responsibly, as many wise individuals have done before him, and through their actions, they attained liberation. This is emphasized in verses 4.10 and 4.15.

To summarize the discussion:

• Karma can be understood in four ways: as the action we take, the reaction we receive, the system of cause and effect, and as actions leading to positive outcomes.
• It can also refer to inaction or actions that yield no reaction, as discussed in the Bhagavad Gita.
• The Gita’s focus is not so much on what reactions we will get from our actions but on what the right actions are for us in a given situation, like Arjuna’s dilemma of whether or not to fight. Krishna teaches that determining right action is difficult even for the wise, underscoring the importance of understanding the nature of both action and inaction.

Through this understanding, we can approach the challenges of life more thoughtfully and with greater spiritual awareness.

In this discussion, we explored how knowledge can expand and deepen our vision, allowing us to see beyond the immediate. Sometimes, a knowledgeable person can perceive more than what is visible, while at other times, they may recognize that reality is the opposite of what appears. For instance, someone who seems confident may actually lack self-assurance, while a seemingly unassuming person may possess great inner strength.

Krishna teaches that even if you act responsibly, like a warrior fighting for a cause, you should do so with a mood of dutiful detachment. In this way, you will not become entangled in the consequences of your actions. A soldier fighting for their country, for example, is detached from personal gain or loss. Conversely, not acting when action is required—like a law enforcement officer who stands by while crimes are committed—leads to entanglement. Thus, it’s crucial to understand the difference between action and inaction, and to act in a way that avoids entanglement.

We also delved into the question of why bad things happen to good people. The principle of karma helps explain this. Karma represents the cause-and-effect relationship, and it extends beyond this life, with each action being like a seed that ripens at different times. When dealing with others, our focus should not be on judging their past actions, but on understanding what is right for us to do in the present moment, in line with our dharma.

We then discussed how to approach difficulties by considering the immediate, remote, and ultimate causes of suffering. For example, in the case of a pandemic like COVID-19, the immediate cause might be exposure to someone infected, the remote cause could be one’s own karma, and the ultimate cause is the disconnection from Krishna.

When facing challenges, we address them according to their level. If the issue is primarily due to the immediate cause, we mitigate it. If it stems from the remote cause, we tolerate it. And if it’s tied to the ultimate cause, we “immigrate” by raising our consciousness to a spiritual level. In all situations, rather than resenting suffering, we view it as an opportunity for spiritual growth.

The Bhagavad Gita does not seek to explain the law of karma, but rather to guide us on how to act when facing suffering. Instead of focusing on why bad things happen to good people, the Gita emphasizes how good people should respond when faced with adversity.

To summarize, we explored the concept of karma as it relates to action and reaction. Karma can be understood as the action we take, the reaction we receive, the system of action and reaction, and actions that lead to positive results. The Gita’s focus is on right action in the face of dilemmas, such as Arjuna’s struggle between fighting and abstaining from battle.

Question and Answer Segment:

A common question is why some people who smoke or drink for a long time don’t face immediate consequences. The explanation is that karma operates over time and may not show immediate reactions. Some people may have strong past karma, resulting in a healthy body despite harmful habits. It’s like having a large bank balance: they might spend recklessly but still remain financially stable for a while. However, over time, their actions will catch up with them, just as spending too much money will eventually lead to bankruptcy.

On the other hand, someone with little good karma may face immediate consequences for even small mistakes. If they take risks, like smoking or using drugs, they may experience harsh reactions right away.

Ultimately, the combination of immediate and remote causes creates unpredictable experiences for each individual. Therefore, we cannot judge the results of our actions based solely on what happens immediately. Karma ensures that all actions, whether seen or unseen, will eventually yield their reactions.

In this discussion, we addressed the claim from atheists that theists use karma as an excuse for not performing their tasks. This claim is interesting, but when we examine history, some of the greatest accomplishments have been achieved by devoted individuals. Many of the finest architectural works, such as temples and churches, were created by people of deep faith. Some of the most profound literary compositions were also written by those who were devoted.

If atheism were to make people lazy, how could such monumental works be accomplished? The Mahabharata, for example, contains 110,000 verses—seven times longer than the Iliad and Odyssey combined. If Yudhishthira or other figures in the Mahabharata had used karma as an excuse to avoid their duty, how could they have created such a monumental text? This reveals a misunderstanding of karma as an excuse for laziness.

However, we must also acknowledge that some theists might misuse the concept of karma. Sometimes, people may fail to address the immediate causes of their suffering, thinking that everything is governed by karma. This is a misapplication of the philosophy. In the Dharmic tradition, for example, Ayurveda doesn’t rely solely on divine intervention for healing. While it prays to God and acknowledges the divine, Ayurveda also involves practical science to address the immediate causes of illness. So, using karma as an excuse to neglect immediate causes is incorrect.

The capacity to see the past and understand the remote cause of a situation is a strength, not a weakness. Sometimes, some things cannot be changed, and in those cases, we need to tolerate them rather than worsen the situation by trying to change what is beyond our control. This understanding is a strength, provided we apply it correctly.

Do the three causes of suffering act simultaneously? The ultimate cause of suffering—the disconnection from Krishna—is always present, like being in an ocean. Sometimes, the waters are calm, and other times, stormy waves of difficulty hit us. The ultimate cause of our suffering is the ocean itself. The remote and immediate causes, however, may be more prominent at different times. For example, in a particular situation, the immediate cause might be 99% responsible, while the remote cause is only 1%. All three causes work together, but they may not be equally influential at all times. Different causes may demand different responses, depending on which one is most prominent in the situation.

Is our free will completely free? No, our free will is not completely unrestricted. Our past actions influence our current choices. For example, someone who has repeatedly drunk alcohol may develop a strong craving, making it harder to resist in the future. While the person still has free will, their past actions can strongly influence their desires and decisions. However, free will is not taken away entirely. Even in the case of an alcoholic, there are moments when they can exercise their free will, especially when the craving is not at its peak. What they choose to do in those moments can shape their future, positively or negatively.

Why does our deeper knowledge not always lead to right action? This happens because of conditioning. Even when we know what the right action is, the momentum of past habits and choices can push us toward the wrong ones. It’s like a car that’s been driven fast for a long time; pressing the brake doesn’t stop the car immediately. Similarly, our past actions create a momentum that can lead us to make unhealthy choices, even when we know better.

What we can do is not to press the “accelerator” of our bad habits any further. Even if we can’t immediately resist the urge to make the wrong choice, we can work on not reinforcing those choices. Additionally, in the moments between temptations, we can make better decisions and stay connected with spiritual practices.

How to overcome the influence of past conditioning? The key is persistence and patience with ourselves. We should connect with Krishna and engage in practices that uplift us. For example, if we enjoy chanting, hearing classes, or meditating on the deities, we should make these activities easily accessible. By focusing on uplifting activities, we crowd out unwanted desires rather than trying to fight them directly. Instead of saying “no” to a bad habit, we say “yes” to Krishna and to something positive. Over time, this will help weaken the influence of past conditioning and allow us to make better choices.

Through bhakti practices, we can counteract the negative effects of our past conditioning, gradually purify ourselves, and move toward a more spiritually connected and fulfilling life.

Thank you very much

Hare Krishna