Hi spiritual partners,

Yesterday I had the opportunity to read the transcript of the 4th conference call in the Authentic Power course through the Shift Network. Just wanted to copy and paste here in this thread Gary’s statement from that transcript: “But the thing to remember is that thinking a negative thought does not create karma. Acting on a negative thought does.”

Well, there it is – a direct statement of Gary’s, which I wanted to know whether any other spiritual partner has seen in any of Gary’s writings. It cannot get any more direct than this, I think.

However, I realize that I will be cheating myself if I stop there and leave it at that. Reading through the whole transcript, I developed the same thoughts that I already happened to have at the end of the 4th conference call after listening to Gary, Linda and the questioners. Except that after I listened, I wondered whether I heard it this way or that way, but when I read the transcript it is right there in black and white.

One of the participants raised the following question (the same kind of question that I wanted to raise when I happened to raise my hand also by pressing 1 at the very beginning of the call for questions): “Now, will negative thought without a corresponding action, just the thoughts alone, create negative karma?” Linda happened to answer this question first.

Linda referred back to an incident that she had described at the very beginning of the conference. In this particular anecdote, some people in the audience were judging the speaker of the day vociferously and even walked out in protest, and Linda in turn happened to judge them inside her own mind through her thoughts without saying anything aloud. Initially she didn’t realize that she was indeed judging them, but what brought it to her attention is the fact that she felt inexplicably exhausted in spite of the short duration of the talk and the ensuing question/answer session, and in spite of its being conducted in the day time (when she could not expect herself to be that tired).

Linda told the above questioner that those were her thoughts (as she didn’t say anything out loud) and “definitely they created negative karma for me”. I thought I heard something like this during the call. When it was time for the group, I brought up the question for discussion by the three of us in the group (for this has been a burning question for me as I mentioned earlier in this thread). And, my starting this thread was a continuation of that discussion among the three of us.

In any case, after reading the transcript, the way I understand it now is that Linda refers to her bodily exhaustion as the definite negative karmic result of her judging thoughts. But, from my above quote of Gary’s, one can also understand that he differs from this. So, what is the solution?

I honestly believe that it has to do with the actual definition, whatever it is, of the term ‘karma’ that one has in mind while using the term. Given this, I immediately tried to skim through the pages of the Seat of the Soul, especially in the chapter on Karma. On p. 40, after discussing Newton’s third law of motion, Gary writes: “The Golden Rule is a behavioral guide that is based upon the dynamic of karma. A personalized statement of karma would be, ‘You receive from the world what you give to the world’.” What Gary appears to imply by this, I think, is that the question of karma for any given person comes into picture only when there is an external effect at least on another person or thing, or other people or things. Not when there is only an internal effect such as one’s own exhaustion after, for example, judging other people, as in the case of Linda’s anecdote.

In other words, according to Gary, “what one gives to the world” appears to be a necessary condition in the dynamic of karma, when it comes to what one receives from the world. That one doesn’t give anything to the world and one still has kept it only inside one’s own energy system, whether it is a judgement or whatever, means that there is no question of one’s receiving something from the world, namely there is no question of a karmic effect yet.

On the other hand, Linda’s definition of karmic effect appears to include also any internal effect such as exhaustion of one’s body. That is, whenever one has a negative thought, the corresponding karmic effect is something such as one’s own exhaustion. Given such a definition, negative thoughts do accrue a negative karma (in the form of the physical sensations at the energy centers).

That there is a difference of view points appears to come out clearly during the discussion between Gary and Linda on the participant’s question. In fact, after Linda answered the question and the questioner said okay, Linda said: “Oh, well, beloved, you have a different way of looking at it.” Gary began his response to this by saying: “There is a difference between thinking something negative and acting on it.” And at some later point of time, Gary makes the statement that I quoted at the very beginning of this post.

I sincerely believe that the solution lies in making the definition of karma clear enough while using the term. Or, alternatively, one can invent suitable adjectives to go with the noun karma in order to distinguish between the two scenarios, one in which the internal effect is neglected and the other in which it is included. Otherwise, I really think a corresponding confusion will continue to exist. In fact, I feel that I can now understand one of Eric’s posts in this thread much better. I think he leans more toward Linda’s definition of karma. Actually, now I am able to rationalize what I was taught when I was growing up, which I have shared in this thread – the definition of karma in this system probably includes the internal effect of physical sensations also.

Personally speaking, I prefer Gary’s approach. I do not think it necessary to include the internal effect of physical sensations such as exhaustion in the dynamic of karma. I think that a physical sensation such as exhaustion is a fantastic signal that the Universe gives us in order for us to realize that a negative thought is occurring in our energy system and for us to attempt to recognize the fp that is trying to rear its ugly head, so that we can address it inside our own system and not allow it to spill outside and have an external effect on others and other things.

I could be easily wrong in my whole understanding and analysis I have tried to share above. I would really appreciate the thoughts and views of other spiritual partners on this.

With loving intentions,
Sundar

Kelley,

Can you please indicate what ‘that’ stands for in your statement “that’s what your head thinks”? I don’t want to make an assumption about what you refer to. I think it will be better if I know exactly what you are referring to before I respond. If possible and necessary, it would be nice if you can copy and paste the statement or statements from my previous post, which you are referring to by ‘that’. Or, it might be an idea that I have conveyed in my post, in which case, you can summarize it. Whatever is convenient for you. Thank you.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post and asking the question. (I could see how long the post is only after submitting it. It is crazily long.)

With loving intentions,
Sundar

Kelley,

Thank you so much for that clarification. I assume that either you imply by your question that the heart is not supposed to agree with the head, or you might be just eager to know whether my heart happens to agree with my head on this. Either way, let me proceed to respond.

Yes, definitely, my heart agrees 100 % with my head about that statement. In fact, to emphasize it even further, I should point out that ever since the moment I realized it, I have really been at peace. Until then, the issue was simply bothering me (as must have been clear from my earlier posts in this thread).

Given the long-winded nature of the post in question, it is possible that I didn’t make it clear enough. Please check whether the following makes sense.

The fundamental question here is: Does a negative thought lead to a negative karma? Linda’s answer is a yes, but Gary’s answer is a no. The next question then is: How can there be such an apparent contradiction?

My suggestion is that the contradiction has to do with a possible difference in the DEFINITION of karma on each person’s part (of course, if I understand the transcript of the 4th call correctly). Let me elaborate.

First, a negative thought in a given person about, say, a second person, can have a negative effect on the first person’s body itself (namely a painful physical sensation) and the intensity of the effect on the body is proportional to the degree to which the thought is entertained. (In Linda’s case, it was to such a degree that it resulted in a bodily exhaustion.) Secondly, when that person ACTS ON that negative thought, in other words when it spills outside of the given person, there is a corresponding negative effect on the other person. This, in turn, will later have an effect on the first person, the idea simply being that the first person should learn the nature of the negativity of the thought that he or she let spill out in the first place.

So, the question now is: Do we include ONLY the second one in the dynamic of karma or do we include the first one (namely the painful physical sensation) ALSO in the dynamic of karma?

If I understand it correctly, Linda included the first one also in her definition of karma in response to the questioner during the 4th conference call, whereas Gary does not include it (in his Seat of the Soul, during the 4th call, etc.). Gary made a direct statement to this effect: “But the thing to remember is that thinking a negative thought does not create karma. Acting on a negative thought does.”

A question immediately arises: Which approach is acceptable, which view makes more sense (or which approach appeals to the heart also in addition to the head)? As I said in my previous post: “Personally speaking, I prefer Gary’s approach.”

Gary considers the negative effect on one’s own body in terms of a painful physical sensation during a given negative thought as a SIGNAL from the Universe to indicate that there is an fp that is rearing its ugly head and an ALERT not to act on it, since acting on it will in turn lead to a negative KARMA. According to Gary, this signal from the Universe is no doubt a very important one, but the Universe does not intend it as a negative karmic effect. The question of karma does not arise at that stage yet. It arises only after the given person acts on the negative thought. It is indeed very appealing to my heart (as well as to my head).

I consider the above clarification on the part of Gary as an important one, because ‘karma’ is a very, very big deal in the East (and to quote Dalai Lama, it is the most misunderstood spiritual concept). Everything in life is basically rationalized in terms of good karma and bad karma (which is fine, of course). And, bad thoughts are said to lead to bad karma. And, to make things much worse, bad karma is taken as synonymous with “punishment from God”. So, in other words, God punishes any bad thought on anybody’s part. I think it can easily confuse anybody. (In fact, Dalai Lama considers this concept as the most misunderstood one for this reason.) A common reaction could be: “What?! You must be kidding me! I seemed to have no control over that bad thought. It just came and went. And, I am going to be punished for that. No way!” Well, the real advice instead has to be something like (I am framing it as per Gary’s spiritual theory): “Don’t be surprised if a bad thought occurs. Its rearing its ugly head is only indicative of an fp trying to become active. Experience that bad (rather negative) thought in order to recognize which fp is attempting to become active. And, don’t act on it. Replace the fear with love. Allow an LP to become active instead.” I think there is an ocean of a difference between the two approaches; the first one can have a destructive effect on the person being advised, while the second one should have a constructive effect on the person being advised. The first one allows the person to feel guilty all the time (since the fp’s always attempt to rear their ugly head; in fact, according to Gary, unconscious choices are always based in fear), and always assume that he or she is going to be “punished” by God.

Just one other clarification. Although I titled this thread as “temptation and karma” (on the basis of Gary’s chapter on Temptation in the Seat of the Soul), the issue here is not just temptation only (in the sense of a desire to go for drugs, alcohol, adultery, gambling, etc.). The issue is, as Gary points out, any negative thought to any degree, even a small degree. For example, in another thread (intention being invisible) I pointed out a situation I am currently in. Let us say that a thought of taking some revenge on my colleague flashes through my mind (it doesn’t, because I have had opportunities to apply Gary’s beautiful spiritual theory even earlier and in other contexts also). Do I then accrue a negative karma? It is definitely comforting to know that I don’t. When such a thought occurs, I just have to make sure that I don’t end up entertaining it to such a degree that I end up acting on it.

Kelley, please let me know whether I make sense. If not, please feel free to tear my statements apart. I would love to rethink about what I have said.

With loving intentions,
Sundar

Thank you, Pam. Good questions.

My immediate clarification is the following. When a question such as “does a negative thought lead to a negative karma?” arises in my mind (or in anyone’s mind, for that matter), I consider it a critical question that has to do with understanding life as a whole. It does not have anything to do with any specific situation in life where there is a need “to make a choice in that moment to choose a healthy, loving response”. I do not understand how a “manipulator/fp that wants to rule my life” comes into picture here at all. (It is really not an exaggeration if I say that I am totally at a loss to understand.) On the other hand, it appears to me that it is questions of this kind that we raise constantly that lead to beautiful concepts such as fp and LP that can help us make a choice in a given moment to choose a healthy, loving response. The intention here is to understand life as a whole and thereby prepare oneself to lead a meaningful, purposeful life.

Let us just imagine for a second that Gary originally thought that it was not a good idea for him to entertain his analytical mind that kept him questioning constantly about life in general and searching for answers. I honestly believe that we would not have today such a simply phenomenal and highly powerful contribution that he has made in this Earth school for all of us to learn and apply in our journey toward a spiritual growth. What would his body scan have revealed to him in such situations when he was entertaining his analytical mind?

Pam, do I make sense? Please let me know if I am missing something fundamental here. Thank you.

With love,
Sundar

Hi Eric,

Nice to hear from you.

The answer depends on what you mean by temptation. If you mean a temptation to smoke, drink, take drug, gamble, etc., the answer is no. None of these have been an issue for me.

Thank you for your question, as it gave me an opportunity to check again Gary’s exact definition for ‘temptation’. On p. 291 of the Soul to Soul, Gary writes: “Temptation is the dynamic through which you are able to become aware of parts of your personality that intend to create consequences that would be painful if you acted on them.” On p. 143 of the Seat of the Soul Gary writes: “Temptation is the Universe’s compassionate way of allowing you to run through what would be a harmful negative karmic dynamic if you were to allow it to become physically manifest. … [It] is the compassionate way of allowing you to see your potential pitfalls, and cleanse yourself before you can affect the lives of others.”

My strong temptation, in the above sense of a strong negative emotion, a strong negative thought, which I have been personally working through, for sure, is anger – not the withdrawal type, but the shouting type. It is a big issue since my young days. In the past I had no clue about any of what Gary beautifully explains in his books (although I used to read a number of spiritually oriented books). I did not try to cleanse myself of the temptation to shout, but instead allowed it to become physically manifest and affect the lives of others, specifically those closely related to me in my own family and my extended family through marriage. It is Gary’s work that provided me with some important missing links that allowed me to connect some important dots. I am extremely thankful to Gary for helping me work through this strong fp in me, although late in my life, and gradually get better and better. It is almost a mountain of a difference between what I used to be and what I have been for quite a few years now. It has been and it still is of course a very hard journey, but a rewarding one. If you like me to elaborate, please let me know. I am open to sharing my experiences.

With love,
Sundar

Hi Eric,

Yes.

With love,
Sundar

Hello spiritual partners,

Wish you all a joyful New Year of loving intentions and conscious choices!
(joyful, as opposed to happy, in Gary’s language)

Hi Radhika,

Thank you for sharing. Just to make sure I get the most out of what you have shared, can you please clarify which question of mine (from among my several posts in this thread) you are referring to when you say, “Sundar, I just wanted to point out that there may be an answer to your question which is beyond the mind.” If you prefer, you can copy that question from my post and paste it in your response. That will be very helpful. Thank you in advance. Also, which has been a very difficult block for you for a while? And, I don’t understand what you meant by: “If I may suggest who is asking this question? Who wants to know the answer? WHo wants the answer and why he wants the answer might help?”

I think I follow well what you say starting with “Are we thoughts?”. Again, to make sure I get the most out of your sharing, I like to know which question of mine you are referring to here.

When I read “When I identify my self with any particular situation I am completely identified and I disappear?”, it reminded me immediately of a situation in quantum theory. I need to think more about it.

With loving intentions,
Sundar

Hi Radhika,

Thank you very much for your time. I totally, completely understand what you are saying.

Let us now consider the paradigm using which you explain everything, “space (awareness or conciousness that which is aware of these things)-thought-emotion-feeling-discomfort or comfort-action-consequence”. A question that arises is: At what stage in the above sequence does a karmic effect arise? Does it arise at the stage of thought-emotion-feeling-discomfort/comfort itself or does it arise only at the stage of action?

For example, consider your colleague “who is very angry, hateful and resentful”. And, consider your usual thoughts: “Why is he that way? Shall I avoid him? Shall I confront him? How do I deal with this?” Let us assume that some of your thoughts in answer to these questions happen to be negative in nature. Then the question that arises is: Do those negative thoughts in you bring you a bad karma, or, do you accrue bad karma only when, only if you act on those negative thoughts? What is your answer to this question? It is regarding this question that I started this thread.

I really appreciate your response to the above question in advance.

Incidentally, is the book you refer to The Untethered Soul: The Journey Beyond Yourself by Michael A Singer? Thank you for introducing it. I quickly skimmed through it online. Appears to be very relevant.

With love,
Sundar