--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <buttsplicer@> wrote: > .. > > Karma translates directly > > as action. The concept is entirely empirical. Action can be > > observed. Newton codified causality when he said for every > > action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is the > > law of Karma. > > > > The law of karma becomes murkier when applied to human behavior. > ... > > > However the law of karma breaks down when psychopaths murder. > > Here human behavior becomes subject to errant physical > > characteristics in the brain. > > > I think a distinction between you you, and i believe Richard, > karma is that you see and event an look back and ask, "what > karma caused this". > Total randomness would be one view -- no correlation at all between > perpetrator and victim. And that may very well be the case. In some > ways, its like trying to put humpty-dumpty back together after the > fall. > > My interest in karma -- or action and action is from the opposite > side (what I perceive as) of yours-- I ask, "what effect this > action will have"? Through trial and error, and learning from > others, one gets an idea of what the effect of This will be on > That. If there is no effect, then things like tennis and baseball > (even cricket -- though that already seems so random to me) are > fraudulant put-ons -- throw or serve the ball and even after 1000's > of hours of practice, the damn ball goes shooting off randomly, > anywhere. > > If a person acts nicely to another, the reaction is not hard to > predict. If a country treats another country like assholes, its > not a huge leap to expect the recipient country to at some future > point to return the favor. That actions of countries affect > others, and create some reaction seems not to be a huge mystery. > > One would hope that good acts by individuals or countries bring some > positive effect (even if that is not the purpose). To argue against > this type of "modern" karma seems to leave one with total > randomness. No causality. Thats a strange universe. However, to > argue against ancient, supersticious metaphors -- of gods and > demons -- well thats just common sense IMO.
Exactly. I think that Stu is confusing the Newage or Hindu view of karma with karma. Karma has nothing whatsoever to do with codes of morality or prescriptions for what is "right" and what is "wrong. Karma is based on pure experience. Action/reaction, and then watch what happens. It's a learning process, and is *anti- thetical* to codes of morality. There IS a feedback mechanism in place in the universe, as far as I can tell, and one that can be "read" and monitored by those who simply pay attention. Merely do something, and then monitor your state of attention. If it goes "up" (something you need a bit of practice in discerning, and then monitoring), then the action was "right," and probably had generally beneficial actions for all concerned. If it goes "down," and leaves you or others in a darker, less happy place, it was probably NOT a "right action." Over time, you learn. IF you pay attention. If people actually DID this, there would be no NEED for moral codes. The moral codes and bullshit about "that guy that I don't like just has bad karma so that's why his house got flooded" are things that people think and say and do INSTEAD of simply monitoring their states of attention and paying attention as they walk their way through life. In short, I think that karma is definitely a valid description of how the universe seems to function. However, the moment that any human being pretends to know what is "right action" or "good karma" for anyone ELSE, anyone but themselves, they're talking bullshit, and can safely be ignored, or better, laughed at. Karma implies the need for individual responsibility. Moral codes come into place when there is none.
