Question: Some people do not want to accept karma concept as it is used as an excuse to wash off one’s willingness to serve the needy. That is, when one sees a suffering person, one might think it is that person’s bad karma and therefore he suffers; so, let him suffer and clear his debt. Thinking like this, one might not help that suffering person.
My question is, if a knowledgeable person intentionally ignores the suffering person without attempting to help or even have some sympathy, is he not implicated of karma for being inactive or insensitive?
For example, Bhismadev, lying on the bed of arrows, implores that he was suffering because of his inaction during Draupadi’s vastraharan. Please enlighten me.
Answer by Romapada Swami: The mood of a devotee is to be compassionate and not judgmental.
A devotee understands from scriptures that nothing in one’s life happens by chance. Rather life’s events are simply karma in action. While karma is manifest due to what we have done in the past, how we respond to life’s current situations determines our future.
Thus, first we should act responsibly; the system of karma exists to hold us responsible – which sometimes plays itself within our current life.
Whenever possible and according to their capacity, the devotees may extend themselves to help address the material needs of others; but more importantly devotees try to provide the ultimate help – relief from material existence by re-connecting the forgetful suffering person to Krsna.
With this understanding, when viewing another’s karmic misfortune, a natural sentiment arises within a devotee to be of some service – on some level according to one’s capacity, ideally somehow serving the sufferer on an Absolute platform.
In this regard, here is an interesting passage from “Ray of Vishnu“
>> When Srila Sarasvati Thakura and his followers were returning from a darsana of Saksi-gopala, he noticed that his householder followers refused to give alms to some poor people who were requesting help. He then sarcastically described their attitude as, “Money should not be given to poor, distressed people … if it is given it will be karma-kanda.” [Srila Sarasvati Thakura was satirizing the attitude of his disciples who were thinking that it was beneath them, as transcendental Vaisnavas, to give charity to the poor, as though this were a continuing activity within the realm of karmic activity.]
>> He stated that, “This type of consideration by householders expresses miserliness, mercilessness, and a lack of affliction at others’ distress. From this attitude the heart becomes hard and attacked with niggardliness, and as a result the tendency to spend money even for Visnu’s service, which is the means of one’s own interest, disappears. Therefore, offense in service (seva-aparadha) is invited. In order to guard against all these hypocritical, sinful deliberations, Sri Gaurasundara in His pastimes used to give help to lowly, distressed people. Even earned wealth is obtained by the mercy of God. It is not the incorrect use of wealth if some portion of mercy is given to requesting poor people – it is its proper use! To distribute mercy (prasada) is the compulsory duty of householder Vaisnavas. Even though their (poor people’s) miserableness has been obtained through the fault of their own karma … they are still God’s people. Therefore, to give them help is the compulsory duty of well-to-do people. However, to think of them as ‘Narayana’ is only blindness to truth and a terrible spiritual offense!”
Charity in passion and ignorance is to be avoided.
>> Charity is meant for the householders. The householders should earn a livelihood by an honorable means and spend fifty percent of their income to propagate Krsna consciousness all over the world. Thus a householder should give in charity to institutional societies that are engaged in that way. Charity should be given to the right receiver. There are different kinds of charity, as will be explained later on—charity in the modes of goodness, passion and ignorance. Charity in the mode of goodness is recommended by the scriptures, but charity in the modes of passion and ignorance is not recommended, because it is simply a waste of money. Charity should be given only to propagate Krsna consciousness all over the world. That is charity in the mode of goodness.
Regarding your question whether one is implicated in karma for being inactive or insensitive towards the person(s) suffering: in addition to the explanations above, the answer very much depends upon the position (adhikara/responsibility) of the person and the specific situation.
For example: if an individual is in a responsible position but neglects to carry out his duties properly then he or she will be implicated in karma.
The instance you have quoted is the example of Bhismadeva.
Bhismadev had committed himself to provide his support to whoever rules the Kuru dynasty. Because he had committed himself to the Kuru king he felt he could not oppose them directly at the time when Draupadi was being disrobed. Similarly, Bhismadeva opted to fight on the side of Duryodhana.
Krsna wanted to demonstrate that no matter how great a person may be, if they choose the wrong side or if they do not perform their responsibilities according to their position they will suffer.
Krsna did not forget Bhismadeva’s devotion because he made a mistake. Nor did Krsna forget the mistake because Bhismadev was a devotee. This understanding of Krsna’s regard for Bhisma is from the conventional point of view.
But from transcendental point of view Bhismadeva was simply cooperating with the will of the Lord in a variety of ways, so that His pastimes could take place as He so desired.
