Karma as a Factor in Disease

[Sena]

I came across two books which claim to explore the meaning of karma. The following is a quote from one of the books:
"Francis Story offers an instructive real-life example. He cites the case of a medical doctor who specializes in pulmonary diseases and is also a Buddhist. While acknowledging the carcinogenic effects of smoking cigarettes, the doctor himself continues to smoke fairly heavily, remarking that even if cancer's 'physical causes' are all present, the disease will develop only if the individual's karma is 'also a predisposing factor' (Story 2000: 45). Is this a fatalistic attitude, in Edwards' strong sense of holding that there is no room for free will in the matter? Although Story leaves many details unclear, there is nothing in what he tells us that should lead us to suppose that the doctor considers himself to be without free will. His motivation for continuing to smoke is not that he is straightforwardly addicted or in some more mysterious way impelled by his karmic inheritance to pursue this habit; it seems that he would admit that he could give it up if he wanted to. Moreover, his talk of 'predispositions' and 'physical causes' implies that karma is not perceived as fully determining whether one contracts cancer; and yet the doctor's sanguinity about his own situation implies the assumption that karma plays the major role." (from "Rebirth and the Stream of Life: A Philosophical Study of Reincarnation, Karma and Ethics" by Mikel Burley)

Kindle edition:  https://amzn.eu/2zobtRw

The above quote refers to Francis Story who was born in England in 1910 and later became a Buddhist monk living in Sri Lanka and other Asian countries. He wrote a book entitled Rebirth as Doctrine and Experience, which can be downloaded free from this site:
https://buddho.org/book/rebirth-as-doctrine-and-experience/

I don't agree with the view of karma  described in the quote above. I think the doctor was rather foolish to continue smoking, using his understanding of karma as an excuse. It seems to me that karma is mainly relevant in our relationships with other people.

[inavalan]

The essence of the explanation is that each one of us creates their reality according to their beliefs and expectations ...

The quote you posted is from somebody who believes that physical causes determine effects. So, I guess he probably misinterpreted what that doctor said. Also, the doctor was Buddhist, so he adhered to a system of beliefs that is different from how Seth describes the nature of reality.

I think that if one smokes or not is irrelevant, but it is relevant what, and how strongly he / she consciously and unconsciously believes about smoking and about his / her health.

I know at least one person who lived to be over 100 years old and smoked until his last day. I know a woman who has been smoking for over 50 years, 1-2 packs a day, and who nine years ago was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, which she still survives, but her lungs are fine. She loves smoking, and she still smokes 1-2 packs a day (lots of money).

That doctor may have strongly believed in the power of karma, and that his karma was to be healthy. His medical opinion was that smoking is generally unhealthy, because that's what he intellectually learned and concluded, but his faith in his good karma overrode his intellectual knowledge and kept him healthy.

It doesn't matter how one acquires a belief, to what they attribute it: science, faith, luck, past life, ...

[Sena]

That doctor may have strongly believed in the power of karma, and that his karma was to be healthy.

Yes, it does seem that the doctor was creating his own reality of staying healthy while smoking!

[inavalan]

"If you are feeling poorly and happen to read an advertisement for vitamins, or a book about them, and are impressed, you will indeed benefit — at least for a while. Your belief will make them work for you, but if your insistence upon poor health persists, then the counter suggestion represented by the vitamins will not be effective for long.

(10:53.) The same applies to the "public service announcements" dealing with tobacco and drugs alike. The suggestion that smoking will give you cancer is far more dangerous than the physical effects of smoking, and can give cancer to who people who might otherwise not be so affected (very intently).

[... 2 paragraphs ...]

Let us return to the example of a gentleman who has ulcers. He believes implicitly that certain foods cause his stomach to behave in a particular manner. There is a medicine, however, that will stop his pain. As long as it is effective, the medicine further convinces him that his stomach difficulty can only be relieved in this fashion.

It becomes a counter suggestion, yet it is all a part of the same hypnotic process, based upon his belief in his original illness. While it gives temporary results, the fact that he needs it reinforces his dependency upon it. If his belief in his poor health continues unchecked, the medicine will no longer serve as an adequate counter measure. It would seem only good sense to refrain from the foods that bring on the condition. Yet each time this is done, the individual acquiesces more and more to the hypnotic suggestion.

He fully believes he will become ill if he eats the forbidden foods, and so he does. It never occurs to him to dispense with the belief — to realize that it alone sets up the conditioning process through the operation of self-hypnotism."

—NoPR Part Two: Chapter 16: Session 660, May 2, 1973

[Sena]

He fully believes he will become ill if he eats the forbidden foods, and so he does. It never occurs to him to dispense with the belief — to realize that it alone sets up the conditioning process through the operation of self-hypnotism."

Yes, I believe I can eat pork chops and stay well.