Achievements of various success in life can be explained through the Law of Karma, however in some circumstances particularly in the matters concerning grace of God the law of Karma only may not be sufficient enough to explain it.
Different philosophies can have their own theories on why it seems that grace of God falls more on some person and less on some. I'm here presenting Non Dual Kashmiri Shaivism view from work of Sri Abhinavagupta. Below quoted are parts from chapter 11 of Tantrasara:
Here the question arises: Who is entitled to receive initiation?
In order to answer this question, the topic of the "descent of
grace' (Shaktipata) is going to be discussed. Some are of the opinion
that worldly existence, which is rooted in ignorance, occurs
as a result of a lack of knowledge, but when ignorance is removed
upon the rise of knowledge, the descent of grace takes place.
However, they should explain why and how this right knowledge
develops. If it is the outcome of deeds, then it would not be different
from the results of actions; it would be a contingency of
being an object of enjoyment. If the person who is the enjoyer
(enjoying an object) is accepted as the recipient of grace, then
the 'fallacy of wideness' (atiprasarga) occurs. If the will of the
Lord is supposed to be the cause of Saktipata, then the "fallacy
of mutual dependence' (anyonyafrayata) occurs and, moreover
it serves no purpose. This theory would also entail the question
of the Lord's partiality. Furthermore, it is not tenable to assume
that mutually opposed actions, having equal capacity to suppress
each other, could balance (past) actions in order that the descent
of grace might occur.This view is not tenable because actions
are sequential and therefore are unable to oppose one another.
Even if it is accepted that they might oppose each other. the question
is raised as to how other actions, which are not opposing one
another, bestow their results. If actions that are not contradictory
to one another do not occur, then one would instantaneously drop one's body. It is not correct to say that only the actions bestowing
the results of birth and life span are not suspended, and that
only those acts that grant experiences of happiness and suffering remain suspended. This view is incorrect because it does not
answer the question of why, even if it is assumed that the descent
of grace occurs in the presence of such actions, grace is afraid of
the deeds that bestow the results of experience. Furthermore, if
the question of grace could be satisfactorily resolved by resorting
to the theory of the ripening of impurities, then the question
of the nature of this theory needs to be answered, as well as the
question of its cause. By this question, all possible causes, such as
detachment, specific form of merit, service to righteous people,
association with saintly persons, and the worship of deities stand
refuted. Thus, arguments advanced by dualists are repudiated as
incoherent. According to this non-dual system of the autonomous Lord. we
maintain the position that the great Lord, by way of sportful play,
veils his innate nature and takes up the form of a bound being
(pasu); however, there is no contradiction regarding the distinction
of space, time, and his innate nature. Similarly, the Lord,
by removing (the freely chosen) limitations upon his innate nature,
reveals himself either instantaneously or gradually to that
recipient of grace cal led a limited knowing subject. The
great Lord is in essence autonomous, and it is He who causes Shakti
to descend;therefore, the descent of grace, which is dependent
on nothing, becomes fruitful by the realization of one's innate
nature. However, for one desirous of enjoyment (bhogotsukasya),
the descent of grace depends on his deeds. Upon one desirous
of otherworldly enjoyments (lokottaranipabhogotsukasya), grace
descends through the agency of Rudra, Vishnu, and Brahma, the
presiding authorities functioning in the sphere of Maya, [who are]
impelled only by the will of the supreme Lord. This kind of grace
yields resu I ts such as the attainment of the status of mantra knowing
subject (mantrapramAta). etc., and (the capacity for) discrimination
between [the principles of] mayti and purusa, purusa and
kala, purusa and prakrti, and purusa and buddhi, and thus bars
that kind of person from enjoying those fruits belonging to the
lower principles. For one desirous of enjoyment and liberation, the descent of grace has to depend on rituals when it comes to enjoyments
and is dependent on nothing when it comes to liberation;
therefore, the descent of grace is both dependent and non-dependent.
It is not proper to ask why the descent of grace occurs only
for that particular person. This is simply because the great Lord
shines in that particular way. This being the case, then to which
person might this kind of injunction related to (the enjoyment of)
some object be directed?
