The words ‘karmic merits and demerits’, like ‘karmic credits and debits’, are not only rather unwieldy, but can also lead to misconceptions. They give the impression of recording angels and books of account, which is wholly wrong. Therefore, why not use the old original word ‘enidvadew’ meaning ‘soulstrength’ or, perhaps more properly, ‘soul vitalisation’.

Enidvadew may be either gained or lost and it must always be remembered that it accumulates through a whole chain of causes and effects. If parents bring a child up badly so that it, in turn, treats its children likewise, then the grandparents continue to lose enidvadew, though there is a limiting and mitigating factor. A man who sells drugs to three people, who then sell to nine others, is penalised in full for the three and in part for the other nine and so on.

All enidvadew is good and it is gained for goodness and lost for expressing the opposite. Anyone devoid of enidvadew is lost indeed and the life gains should always exceed the losses.

Thus persons are judged by their respective accumulations of enidvadew rather than whether they have balanced good with bad.

Here then, is an illustration of the workings of enidvadew:
Take a single woman who has an illegitimate baby girl, which she puts out for adoption. The woman later marries a ‘mughusband’, that is to say one who was deceived as to her true status and has a baby boy who grows up and marries.
Who, if anyone, incurs loss or gain of enidvadew?

Well, the father of the illegitimate baby girl incurs considerable loss of enidvadew, as does the mother equally. Neither the baby girl nor the adoptive parents incur loss or gain. Now, when the woman marries, she again is accountable for a loss of enidvadew because she deceived her husband; also, following the adoption of the baby girl, she longed for a girl to replace it and because of this and his consequent upbringing, the son grew up to be a transvestite, a sexual misfit who married and, in turn, caused unhappiness to his wife and himself. So the mother incurred considerable loss of enidvadew because of the son and because of his wife; and the man who fathered the baby girl is also incurring additional loss of enidvadew.

The mughusband loses a small amount of enidvadew for the part played in contributing to his son’s unhappiness and that of the son’s wife, but this varies according to circumstances.

So you can see that the situation is rather complex. Perhaps you can understand why reference is sometimes made in certain literature to ‘the web of enidvadew’.

However, it is unwise to be overly conscious of enidvadew, in relation to daily deeds, for such would become an undue burden. It is sufficient to know the laws of life and what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong. Thus, you will subconsciously react to situations, in a manner best for you.

Here, too, a balance must be struck for if you are to take the attitude that you should not be unduly conscious of whatever is burdensome, then you are tending towards taking the easy path and going down hill; you are sliding back into a state of mental inertia.

Is this equivalent to the Christian concept of the sins of the father are visited upon the son?

If so then at least better explained and making a bit more sense :wink:

According to Gwineva, the concept of the fathers sins being transferred to the children, is both abhorant, and false.
I agree, men “pay”, for their own sins, only an unjust and wicked god, would afflict the innocent children, for the sake of their fathers wrong doings.
“Far be it from thee, oh LORD, to destroy the innocent, with the guilty”.

This is true. Vicarious Atonement of any kind is an interesting hang-over from earlier, more primitive times in our current historical understanding. Its effectiveness, though, is very evident, particularly as it relates to Christian ideology. An excellent form of [mind] control if ever there was.

I agree. We are all responsible for our thoughts and actions and, as a result, responsible for the consequences from those thoughts and actions. I believe this to be true whether such actions be positive or negative.

However, we all know stories of men, women and children suffering unnecessarily for the actions of their parents, grandparents, and/or ancestors simply because others are unable to, or unwilling to, separate events from the perpetrator and his or her family members (whether historical or current).