Q. My question refers to the digest entitled, “Remembering Sufferings from Past Lives“. In your answers to questions #1 and #2, I couldn’t understand what your position was on the connection between remembering our past misdeeds and ceasing similar, future misdeeds. So, would you please reconcile what appeared to be a contradiction?
In your response to #1 you said that experiencing the negative association between the misdeed and its consequence discourages future misdeeds: “But if ‘prayascitta’ is not undertaken within one’s lifetime, it is then that those reactions accrue upon death for which the soul will have to suffer in hell or in a future life. Such punishment or suffering is coded in the subtle body and although one may not remember, it prevents one from the tendency to commit such sins again just as a child that experiences a burn will stay away from fire.”
However, in your response to #2 you said that experiencing the consequences of our past misdeeds doesn’t necessarily result in, and often doesn’t result in, our ceasing the misdeeds that caused our suffering: “It is not necessary that by remembrance of the details of past misdeeds one would come to repent and take shelter of God, although it may happen in some cases. Even in things concerning one’s immediate present life, we increasingly see people indulging in habits that they know will have harmful consequences, and often they do not come to their good sense and admit their mistake even when suffering the consequences. As long as the heart is not purified of the effects of the modes of passion and ignorance, viz. lust, greed, anger etc., one cannot break away from sinful reactions and take to God realization.”
My own observation is that both sides of this issue seem to be true depending on the nature of the person who committed the misdeed. Anyway, I would very much appreciate your clearing up my misunderstanding of your statements.
Answer by Romapada Swami: Thank you for bringing up this clarification. The negative consequence of misdeeds, in the form of punishment or suffering, “discourages” such tendency but does not guarantee one from not repeating it, and it certainly does not necessarily lead one to deeply repent the underlying wrong attitude or turn towards the Supreme Lord — this was my point.
This can be experienced even in common day-to-day examples in training children or enforcing law and order in society. When there is apparently no negative consequence, one gets increasingly ‘used to’ transgressing the principles of virtue; when the government or executive head is weak, miscreants and criminals flourish. But when there is strong law-enforcement, it discourages corruption and crime to a great extent, although that is not sufficient to actually reform the miscreants at heart.
Consider the example of the codes of justice in the Manu-samhita which supports a murderer being condemned to death so that in his next life he will not have to suffer for the great sin he has committed. The idea is that when a pious and compassionate king strongly punishes a criminal, it is actually beneficial because it discourages them from digging deeper into such sins and having to experience more severe consequences in hell. In the same way, when the subtle body is punished in hell, it leaves an impression on the consciousness, even though the reaction may not be experienced within the same lifetime, and this restrains such attitudes in future lives.
The issue in question was how punishment after death can be justified, because it would seem that one no longer remembers what they are being punished for — and the above description answers that doubt.
We can infer the truth of this principle when we see that some children have an inherent reluctance or hesitation towards lying, stealing, being cruel, etc even without being trained by anyone to refrain from such acts. One reason for this can be understood as the result of impressions of negative consequences carried from past life.
However, this does not guarantee one from committing those misdeeds ever again. Freewill still remains, and because the desire to enjoy is still present in the heart, due to the force of lust or by bad association, once again one may begin to indulge in such acts, overruling their conscience.
Thus, your observation is true that ultimately it is the freewill of each individual to take advantage of circumstances either to reform or to continue with their misdeeds. Fear of punishment or negative consequence – enforced by man or by higher arrangement in the form of karma – can help to curb the tendency to some extent. But real reformation of the heart happens only by treating the root cause, namely the desire to lord it over, through the process of devotional service by turning one’s attention to God.
This is the conclusion of a similar discussion between Maharaja Pariksit and Sukadeva Goswami on this topic – I invite you to read this section from SB Canto 6, Ch 1.
