Tattva-viveka
"Good" Karma
Gauravani Dasa - December 9, 2013 5:19 pm
When we receive the results of "good" karma, is "bad" karma also generated?
For example, if someone born into a wealthy family lives a life of lavish sense indulgence, such a lifestyle necessarily harms others, be it animals consumed or employees treated poorly in the family business, etc. This example may only apply in the Western world but it seems that this kind of enjoyment creates suffering for others.
Can this be generalized to include all "good" karma? Perhaps a subtle, heavenly existence does not involve harming others?
Then again, an argument can be made that the distinction between "good" and "bad" karma is trivial and trying to figure out what is truly good or bad in a material context is fruitless.
Swami - December 9, 2013 5:27 pm
The good karma does not create the bad karma, but rather the way in which one responds to one's good karma may create bad karma.
Prema-bhakti - December 10, 2013 1:12 pm
The same can be said for so called "bad" karma, it's how you respond. Made me think of the examples of Mahaprabhu being cursed by a brahman to never have material happiness and Maharaja Pariksit being cursed to die in seven days. There is also the example of Narada and his mother dying.
The tendency seems though that one becomes intoxicated by good karma which in turn creates a lack of spiritual urgency which is problematic.
Gauravani Dasa - December 10, 2013 6:35 pm
I was going ask if bad karma corresponds to less free will in our response to karma, but based on Mahaprabhu's and other's example, that does not appear to be the case.
Guru-nistha Das - December 11, 2013 1:37 pm
I don't have any shastra to back up my intuition, but I have a feeling that we actually do have less free will in response to at least the psychological type of bad karma. My reasoning is that bad karma on the psychic plane creates a disposition that is dominated my tamas, which in turn muddles clear thinking and constructive decision-making. That seems to imply that one is more at the mercy of one's instinct than will. Thoughts?
Prema-bhakti - December 11, 2013 2:18 pm
I have a few thoughts because I have been working on an article that isn't on this topic directly but it got me thinking about happiness as a buzz kill in our spiritual endeavors.
If we are speaking of "bad" karma as calamities in our lives, I think there is much to support in sastra that negative impetus is a strong impetus for taking shelter. If one is pious and/or has sufficient bhakti samskaras and sambandha jnana the natural reaction to "bad" karma is to take shelter. Krsna seems to indicate he takes things away from those who have surrendered to him. Perhaps that isn't classified as "bad" karma but externally such actions appear that way.
In terms of "good" karma it seems as I stated above that the tendency is to create another kind of reaction which may foster feelings of being in control and independent such feelings may diminish a sense of vulnerability, mortality and dependence.
In BG, Krsna describes the conditioning of one situated in sattva guna. Such a sense of well being can be very satisfying and thus spiritually stagnating and materially intoxicating.
I do see your point though Gurunistha. "Bad" karma can also throw one into a downward tailspin. But I wouldn't exactly support the idea that there is a tendency for that any more than in regards to "good" karma.
Prema-bhakti - December 11, 2013 2:33 pm
In my personal life I have observed that more often than not the tendency to take shelter is increased during times of difficulty. Not always, but I definitely see the tendency and trend in my existence thus far.
Guru-nistha Das - December 11, 2013 4:23 pm
I find this discussion really interesting.
Prema, it seems like we're talking about slightly different aspects of karma. You are talking about karma as an impetus for spiritual practice, whereas I'm talking about it with regard to free will. I'll try to first make my point regarding free will and then say something about the impetus aspect.
Guru Maharaja says often that the more we are like matter, the less we have free will. Matter is inert and the less there is consciousness involved, the less there is will. So naturally, the more we move away from tamas and rajas, the more we approach consciousness and thus the more our will surfaces.
Regarding the point about bad karma being better impetus for spiritual life than good karma, I disagree with that partially. You mentioned that one has to be pious or have bhakti samskara in order to respond to calamities by taking shelter. That means either the influence of sattva or suddha-sattva, respectively. So if you're under the modes very heavily-which having bad karma could be said to mean-you will not respond by trying to take shelter of a divine being but more likely will respond by negative feelings and self-destructive behavior.
Maybe the best platform for spiritual life is not either good or bad karma alone, but the right kind of combination of them? You will have to have enough piety to take shelter of God but without the bad results of one's actions one is too comfortable and complacent to take action.
Prema-bhakti - December 11, 2013 6:54 pm
I agree with your last statement in regards to impetus.
I see what you mean about free will. Yes, I agree that our free will is extremely limited.
In regard to your other points about good or bad karma, I'm not entirely sold.
Gauravani Dasa - December 12, 2013 1:19 am
Regarding the point about bad karma being better impetus for spiritual life than good karma, I disagree with that partially. You mentioned that one has to be pious or have bhakti samskara in order to respond to calamities by taking shelter. That means either the influence of sattva or suddha-sattva, respectively. So if you're under the modes very heavily-which having bad karma could be said to mean-you will not respond by trying to take shelter of a divine being but more likely will respond by negative feelings and self-destructive behavior.
Can a distinction be made between what guna influences our mind internally and the guna/karma occurring externally? For example, one person predominantly influenced by sattva would respond to the same external event very differently than another person predominately influenced by tamas or rajas, regardless of the gunas that influence the external event.
(BTW, Prema, I need some difficulty to push me to take shelter too. You're not alone in that boat.)
Guru-nistha Das - December 12, 2013 4:45 am
Prema, I'd be interested to hear what doesn't make sense to you regarding what I said about good and bad karma, maybe I've missed something and would like to get it right if that was the case.
Gauravani, to me it definitely seems to be the case that there's often a difference between the internal and external manifestation. I had a theory about how it could actually happen based on the progression of kuta, bija, aprarabdha and prarabdha, but that whole progression is quite hazy in my mind so I have to look it up first in BRS to refresh my memory.
Prema-bhakti - December 13, 2013 12:55 am
I guess I don't see much of a distinction to be made between bad or good karma in regards to how it limits free will. It seems like splitting hairs unless one is situated under the guidance of a sadhu. With good sanga one can access their potential progressively and change their karmic destiny.
The full potential of the jiva is only realized when the ingress of svarupa sakti takes place. In any other condition my understanding is that the jiva's free will is extremely limited and compromised.
Prema-bhakti - December 13, 2013 1:07 am
Gauravani, thanks for the support. 
I think negative impetus is a strong factor for most people, at least in the beginning stages. It seems like a very natural and human tendency. There are many examples in sastra as well that demonstrate such tendency. Rshika Kunta Devi even prays for such negative impetus.
It is interesting how Krsna's Vraja-lla is also called the nara-lila because it is human like. Within that context we see the gamut of human emotions expressed in perfection and therefore we also see how there are so many obstacles and seeming negative impetus that play out in union and separation from Krsna in his lila. It's very beautiful indeed.
Guru-nistha Das - December 13, 2013 4:34 am
Prema, I see one mistake now that I made. I said,
"So if you're under the modes very heavily-which having bad karma could be said to mean-you will not respond by trying to take shelter of a divine being[...]"
I put that wrong. It sounds like I'm saying that having any bad karma means that one is heavily under the modes but that's not what I meant to say. I meant to say that bad karma means the influence of the lower modes of nature.
Gauravani, I thought more about the progression starting from kuta (initial reaction) to bija (impression/disposition in the mind), then unmanifest karma and finally manifest karma. It makes a lot of sense that the internal influence can be different than the external, because when previous reactions come from the kuta stage to the bija stage in which impressions in the mind are being created, the karma in the manifest stage is already practically expiring. In other words, the reactions that are in the bija stage on the figurative "karmic conveyor belt" are earlier reactions than the "ready product" of manifest karma, and can thus be different. Does that make sense?
Shyamananda Das - December 15, 2013 2:13 am
I heard a story some years ago (can't find it now) that I'll try to re-tell.
A yogi was pierced by an arrow and got upset because he thought he had lived an exemplary life and shouldn't get any bad karma. He approached some demigod about this (Yamaraj? Citragupta?), and asked why it happened. He was told that in a previous life, as a boy, he had pierced an insect with a blade of grass. The yogi chastised the demigod upon hearing this, saying that he was too young to incur karma. He then made a rule that up until one's thirteenth year, no one will incur any karma.
This principle can be found in modern law. The ages of criminal responsibility around the world ranges from 6 to 18.
I wonder if this is a dynamic rule, that you will be free from incurring karma simply until you're mature enough to understand what you're doing.
Prema-bhakti - December 15, 2013 2:37 am
I heard this principal as well not sure where it was quoted from but it was told to me by an ISKCON Swami in Brooklyn temple when I joined because I stopped eating meat when I was ten years old and he replied that I did not incur any sinful karma because of that. Go figure.
Prema-bhakti - December 15, 2013 2:42 am
I also have heard that up to a certain age of a child the parents may incur the sinful reactions of the child. Maybe that is 13 as well. As I remember hearing these things it seemed more authoritative than a story.
Braja-sundari Dasi - December 15, 2013 2:57 am
I heard of 5 years, which makes more sense since nowadays there are most horrible crimes done by teenagers fully taking advantage of the fact that they cannot be punished. But I don`t think even "5 year rule" works in mechanical way. Children can be very aware of what they do wrong. Where there is cold calculation, there must be bad karma, where there is intention to do something good, there is good karma, regardless of the age- that`s my feeling about it.
Shyamananda Das - December 15, 2013 5:26 am
I've heard something in relation to that, that until the child reaches the age of five the parents should be lenient and simply protect the child, not chastise or try to teach moral lessons.
Regarding children being aware of doing wrong, animals can also be mischievous, but they are said to not incur karma.
Prema-bhakti - December 15, 2013 11:36 am
Young kids are a lot like animals. Monkeys specifically. 
Gauravani Dasa - December 16, 2013 1:49 am
Gauravani, I thought more about the progression starting from kuta (initial reaction) to bija (impression/disposition in the mind), then unmanifest karma and finally manifest karma. It makes a lot of sense that the internal influence can be different than the external, because when previous reactions come from the kuta stage to the bija stage in which impressions in the mind are being created, the karma in the manifest stage is already practically expiring. In other words, the reactions that are in the bija stage on the figurative "karmic conveyor belt" are earlier reactions than the "ready product" of manifest karma, and can thus be different. Does that make sense?
Yes, that helps, thanks Gurunistha!