“The Lord with Peter, James and John were in Jerusalem; it was the Sabbath day. And as they walked along the way they saw a man who could not see; he had been blind from birth. And Peter said, Lord, if disease and imperfections all are caused by sin, who was the sinner in this case? the parents or the man himself?

And Jesus said, Afflictions all are partial payments on a debt, or debts, that have been made. There is a law of recompense that never fails, and it is summarized in that true rule of life: Whatsoever man shall do to any other man some other man will do to him. In this we find the meaning of the Jewish law, expressed concisely in the words, Tooth for a tooth; life for a life. He who shall injure any one in thought, or word, or deed, is judged a debtor to the law, and some one else shall, likewise, injure him in thought, or word or deed. And he who sheds the blood of any man will come upon the time when his blood shall be shed by man.

Affliction is a prison cell in which a man must stay until he pays his debts unless a master sets him free that he may have a better chance to pay his debts. Affliction is a certain sign that one has debts to pay. Behold this man! Once in another life he was a cruel man, and in a cruel way destroyed the eyes of one, a fellow man. The parents of this man once turned their faces on a blind and helpless man, and drove him from their door.
(Aquarian Gospel 138:1-13)

• Afflictions all are partial payments on a debt, or debts, that have been made.

Some troubles are full payment and some are partial. But when it is over, the karmic debt has been reduced. That is the important thing.
“There is a law of recompense that never fails, and it is summarized in that true rule of life: Whatsoever man shall do to any other man some other man will do to him.”

• There is a law of recompense that never fails, and it is summarized in that true rule of life: Whatsoever man shall do to any other man some other man will do to him.

Exactly what is done shall be done to us: the very same thing. If I steal, I will be stolen from; I will not just lose something of equal value to what I stole. Another human being will take it from me. This is very important. It is exact, like an echo: only what you say will come back to you, not something merely similar. Sometimes more than one karma will be be neutralized by a single thing that will reflect their general character. But, as I say, it is mostly an exact reaction.

Continue reading

The following is the first and second section of Chapter Sixty-One of Gandhi’s autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth.

We now reach the stage in this story when I began seriously to think of taking the brahmacharya vow. I had been wedded to a monogamous ideal ever since my marriage, faithfulness to my wife being part of the love of truth. But it was in South Africa that I came to realize the importance of observing brahmacharya even with respect to my wife.

I cannot definitely say what circumstance or what book it was that set my thoughts in that direction, but I have a recollection that the predominant factor was the influence of Raychandbhai, of whom I have already written. I can still recall a conversation that I had with him. On one occasion I spoke to him in high praise of Mrs. Gladstone’s devotion to her husband. I had read somewhere that Mrs. Gladstone insisted on preparing tea for Mr. Gladstone even in the House of Commons, and that this had become a rule in the life of this illustrious couple, whose actions were governed by regularity. I spoke of this to the poet, and incidentally eulogized conjugal love.

Two ideals of service

‘Which of the two do you prize more,’ asked Raychandbhai, ‘the love of Mrs. Gladstone for her husband as his wife, or her devoted service irrespective of her relation to Mr. Gladstone? Supposing she had been his sister, or his devoted servant, and ministered to him the same attention, what would you have said? Do we not have instances of such devoted sisters or servants? Supposing you had found the same loving devotion in a male servant, would you have been pleased in the same way as in Mrs. Gladstone’s case? Just examine the viewpoint suggested by me.’

Raychandbhai was himself married. I have an impression that at the moment his words sounded harsh, but they gripped me irresistibly. The devotion of a servant was, I felt, a thousand times more praiseworthy than that of a wife to her husband. There was nothing surprising in the wife’s devotion to her husband, as there was an indissoluble bond between them. The devotion was perfectly natural. But it required a special effort to cultivate equal devotion between master and servant. The poet’s point of view began gradually to grow upon me.

What then, I asked myself, should be my relation with my wife? Did my faithfulness consist in making my wife the instrument of my lust?

Continue reading