Recently I have read Alexandre Dumas' "The Count of Monte Cristo". This tale, like many other dramatic presentations of revenge, , somewhat considers the notion of justice in such a manner that, through righting the wrong - or exacting an equitable price - that a return to balance may be reached. This is, in one way or another, similar to what may be considered the retributive aspects of karma, where evil is returned with evil in turn, and good with that of good, is it not? Perhaps a bit Westernized, in that the Count of Monte Cristo eventually comes to consider himself an agent of Providence, but still somewhat akin to karma, no?

Now, if we are to assume that karma exists, we can say that no matter what happens, one deserves it. That is to say, all things that happen to oneself, and all which happen to others, are all founded in what can be said to be a rigid system which promises a return of that which was given out. A man is killed by a car and he deserves it, a city is flooded and they deserve it, a planet is struck by an asteroid and the planet deserves it, et cetera, et cetera. But what about when it is an intelligent being acting against another?

Suppose Johnathan has been wronged by Steve. Now, according to Karma, Johnathan deserved it, otherwise such would not have occurred. However, whatever happens to Steve is also deserved by him, is it not? So supposing Johnathan returns the favour, he is basically fullfilling the mandate of karma in one way or another, is he not? Acting thus, cannot one say that all actions are fundementally deserved and this can legitimize such exercises as seeking revenge? To essentially legitimize adopting the mantle of karma's charge and claiming the price for it? Indeed, is not a vigilante of sorts like the Count of Monte Cristo, or Batman, then simply human versions of karmaic processes?

In essence, is it proper to conceive of such things as so? Was Ghenghis Kahn right when he declared:

"I am the Flail of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon You."

It would seem to be...yes.

First of all, attempting to figure out the exact workings of karma would
make a person insane. (See the Acintita Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html))
Because everything is interconnected, it is impossible to figure out the
exact cause and effect relationships between phenomena. We do know some of
it, but because we can't know it in full, we also don't know how much of the
whole we know or don't know.

Secondly, an action does not dictate the intent of it, nor the perception of
it.
When someone does something, we can't know why they did it just by observing
their action, and also what the action is perceived as can vary from one
person to another.
Moreover, it is typical that people have a number of intentions behind one
action.


Thirdly, as for revenge: We are not mechanical agents of karma. We do not
always react to negativity with negativity, nor to positivity with
positivity; we do not always reply, be it in action or in how we think about
something or someone, in the same manner as we were approached, so to speak.
This is a fact. We can transcend the the reactive mode of being -- the
reactive mode of being is where we reply to something in the same way as we
have perceived it to be.
In each moment, there are three things present: The results of past action
(the where we are and how we feel), the present action (what we are doing
right now) and the present intention. It is in the present intention that
our free will factors in. However, we do not always register each moment as
being made up of these three factors, we do not always have such
discernment, but sometimes we do.


This:

"I am the Flail of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not
have sent a punishment like me upon You."

is true to the person to whom this is said to if this person believes at
least the following:

Ghengis Khan is the Flail of God.
God exists.
I have comitted great sins that deserve punishment.
Ghenghis Khan will exact the punishment that God deems just for me.

If the person does not believe this, then they will not think themselves
punished, even though Gheghis Khan killed them, declaring that he is the
Flail of God.

water:

Water! Hello!

"First of all, attempting to figure out the exact workings of karma would
make a person insane. (See the Acintita Sutta)
Because everything is interconnected, it is impossible to figure out the
exact cause and effect relationships between phenomena. We do know some of
it, but because we can't know it in full, we also don't know how much of the
whole we know or don't know."

So one cannot find out the true source of any karma one has? But can we be certain that, if indeed one's fate has been bad, that the result was from negativity on one's part in actions, speech, et cetera?

"Secondly, an action does not dictate the intent of it, nor the perception of
it.
When someone does something, we can't know why they did it just by observing
their action, and also what the action is perceived as can vary from one
person to another.
Moreover, it is typical that people have a number of intentions behind one
action."

This is true. There are differences in perception and hidden intents in many things. That being said, would not our actions, too, stem from karma? And the result from karma? And all that?

"Thirdly, as for revenge: We are not mechanical agents of karma. We do not
always react to negativity with negativity, nor to positivity with
positivity; we do not always reply, be it in action or in how we think about
something or someone, in the same manner as we were approached, so to speak.
This is a fact. We can transcend the the reactive mode of being -- the
reactive mode of being is where we reply to something in the same way as we
have perceived it to be.
In each moment, there are three things present: The results of past action
(the where we are and how we feel), the present action (what we are doing
right now) and the present intention. It is in the present intention that
our free will factors in. However, we do not always register each moment as
being made up of these three factors, we do not always have such
discernment, but sometimes we do."

So therefore it does not behoove us to act in such and such a manner, but rather it is our choice? But would not both be up to our karma? Whether I react positively or negatively to any given action?

"If the person does not believe this, then they will not think themselves
punished, even though Gheghis Khan killed them, declaring that he is the
Flail of God. "

Well yes, that is true. I mostly quoted him to more make a point. Ghenghis Kahn, this great conqueror, almost seems like a karmic manifestation in his own right, having made the world after his own will so. Also I thought it appropriate to mention as Ghenghis Kahn himself was a Mongolian animist and Buddhist, and his descendents would be Buddhists of great standing and one would even be the first to declare the Dalai Lama as such.

So one cannot find out the true source of any karma one has?

The source of one's karma are one's actions.
Karma literally means 'action'.
Note that perception, interpretation are also actions.


But can we be certain that, if indeed one's fate has been bad, that the result was from negativity on one's part in actions, speech, et cetera?

I think we can be certain of such a thing. Once you see that the same thing has been happening to you over and over again, you may also start noticing that you do play a part in it.

As for one's faith being bad: This is a matter of perspective, the karma of thoughts and feelings about what has happened to one.
For example, two persons (of similar socioeconomical status) get robbed (the same amount of money). One is unhappy, thinks this is bad fate. The other sees it as a desperate act of the robber, and doesn't see it as bad fate.


This is true. There are differences in perception and hidden intents in many things. That being said, would not our actions, too, stem from karma? And the result from karma? And all that?

Of course.
As the chant on karma goes (P.S. "kamma" is Sanskrit, "karma" is Pali) -- see the Five Subjects for Frequent Recollection:

I am the owner of my kamma,
heir to my kamma,
born of my kamma,
related to my kamma,
abide supported by my kamma.
Whatever kamma I shall do, whether good or evil, of that I shall be the heir.

(There are also translations where the word "kamma" is replaced with "actions" -- "I am the owner of my actions ...")


So therefore it does not behoove us to act in such and such a manner, but rather it is our choice? But would not both be up to our karma? Whether I react positively or negatively to any given action?

Yes. This is why Buddhist practice and cultivate themselves, in order to create good karma, a good momentum -- as opposed to creating bad karma, bad momentum.


Ghenghis Kahn, this great conqueror, almost seems like a karmic manifestation in his own right, having made the world after his own will so.

Yes, the themse of "God's vengeful sword"; it's quite common. Not so few people think that as long as they can name a justification, they can do anything in the name of it.


Also I thought it appropriate to mention as Ghenghis Kahn himself was a Mongolian animist and Buddhist, and his descendents would be Buddhists of great standing and one would even be the first to declare the Dalai Lama as such.

I didn't know about that!

Water:

"The source of one's karma are one's actions.
Karma literally means 'action'.
Note that perception, interpretation are also actions."

I had meant the specific cause-and-effect relationship. I stub my toe, there must be a karmaic reason for this, but it is hardly likely.

"I think we can be certain of such a thing. Once you see that the same thing has been happening to you over and over again, you may also start noticing that you do play a part in it."

Yes. That is quite true. The finger tends to finally point back to oneself.

"As for one's faith being bad: This is a matter of perspective, the karma of thoughts and feelings about what has happened to one.
For example, two persons (of similar socioeconomical status) get robbed (the same amount of money). One is unhappy, thinks this is bad fate. The other sees it as a desperate act of the robber, and doesn't see it as bad fate."

That reminds me rather of the Stoic notion that it is only the acceptance of something as bad which causes the suffering.

That being said, at least the neutral-coloured-by-perception act is rooted in karma, yes? And that one could even say one's response is similarly fated by karamic notions? One might perhaps proclaim - and I would think erroneously, but even so - that "good karma" was the cause of the "positive reaction" in the second, whereas "bad" in the more "negative" first.

"Of course.
As the chant on karma goes (P.S. "kamma" is Sanskrit, "karma" is Pali) -- see the Five Subjects for Frequent Recollection:"

Not to be nit picky, but I think you have the sanskrit-pali backwards. According to most of my sources, karma is the Sanskrit verison, whereas kamma is the Pali. This is the same with such other words as dharma and anatman, as opposed to dhamma and anatta.

"I am the owner of my kamma,
heir to my kamma,
born of my kamma,
related to my kamma,
abide supported by my kamma.
Whatever kamma I shall do, whether good or evil, of that I shall be the heir.

(There are also translations where the word "kamma" is replaced with "actions" -- "I am the owner of my actions ...")"

Yes, action is a good translation, really. Although karma perhaps is best to adopt in English to distinguish it from normal action and to relate it back to a specific philosophical notion as found in Hinduism and Buddhism.

"Yes. This is why Buddhist practice and cultivate themselves, in order to create good karma, a good momentum -- as opposed to creating bad karma, bad momentum."

But the irony is that even that level of development would have to have been sparked by good kharma, no?

"Yes, the themse of "God's vengeful sword"; it's quite common. Not so few people think that as long as they can name a justification, they can do anything in the name of it."

Although that being said, Ghenghis Khan was a pretty good man and ruler.

"I will rule them by fixed laws [so] that rest and happiness shall prevail in the world." - Ghenghis on being crowned Mongolian khan.

He is rather a bit like a more violent version of king Asoka in some ways.

That being said, I am certainly glad the Tartars stopped at the Danube. Betwixt them and the Turks, Europe would not have had a future.

"I didn't know about that!"

Well, I ought to clarify: The Mongolians didn't start the Dalai Lama, but due to their admiration and their allowance of the Dalai Lama, as well as their eventual patronage and assistance, the Dalai Lama would become -the- patriarch of Tibetan Buddhism and political ruler of the Tibetan people. It all started with the Third Dalai Lama:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonam_Gyatso%2C_3rd_Dalai_Lama

Than the Fourth who was a Mongolian himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonten_Gyatso%2C_4th_Dalai_Lama

And the Fifth, who became ruler of all Tibet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozang_Gyatso%2C_5th_Dalai_Lama

The khans were, aside from their conquests themselves, generally good rulers and good men, with strong religious ties in the varying countries they subjugated, including being important equally in Islamic traditions in the Turkic-Mongolian holdings. Their conquests, were of course, rather brutal, but that is not at all the only aspect of their reign.

Interesting fellows they were!

I had meant the specific cause-and-effect relationship. I stub my toe, there must be a karmaic reason for this, but it is hardly likely.

Of course there is a karmic reason for stubbing your toe.
How do you think you stubbed your toe, if not by action? Did someone stub it for you?
(!)


And I need to correct myself -- I said:

"As for one's faith being bad: This is a matter of perspective, the karma of thoughts and feelings about what has happened to one.

That should read "fate", not "faith".


"Of course.
As the chant on karma goes (P.S. "kamma" is Sanskrit, "karma" is Pali) -- see the Five Subjects for Frequent Recollection:"

Not to be nit picky, but I think you have the sanskrit-pali backwards. According to most of my sources, karma is the Sanskrit verison, whereas kamma is the Pali. This is the same with such other words as dharma and anatman, as opposed to dhamma and anatta.

Yes, I'm sorry. Thank you for reminding me.

See, off went my mindfulness. Things happen and one doesn't even notice -- until after the event.
And I even know why -- I had been distracting myself from something for days now, avoiding to deal with it -- and it shows in the mistakes I make and don't notice. Same with stubbing one's toe: Were one mindful of one's walking, one wouldn't stub one's toe. But because one wasn't mindful of what one was doing, how one was walking, and was instead thinking of something else, one stubbed one's toe.


"Yes. This is why Buddhist practice and cultivate themselves, in order to create good karma, a good momentum -- as opposed to creating bad karma, bad momentum."

But the irony is that even that level of development would have to have been sparked by good kharma, no?

Yes. There is the notion that the human birth is precious, allows for a lot of cultivation.



But I'll stop and go deal with that troubling thing I had been putting off for days.
Enough of stubbed toes and mismatched words.

Water:

"Of course there is a karmic reason for stubbing your toe.
How do you think you stubbed your toe, if not by action? Did someone stub it for you?
(!)"

And to correct myself - as, oddly enough, you corrected yourself a moment afterwards! - I had meant to add "it is hardly likely we can figure it out", rather than "it is hardly likely it has karamic foundations". Excuse me!

"Yes, I'm sorry. Thank you for reminding me. "

A pleasure.

"See, off went my mindfulness. Things happen and one doesn't even notice -- until after the event.
And I even know why -- I had been distracting myself from something for days now, avoiding to deal with it -- and it shows in the mistakes I make and don't notice. Same with stubbing one's toe: Were one mindful of one's walking, one wouldn't stub one's toe. But because one wasn't mindful of what one was doing, how one was walking, and was instead thinking of something else, one stubbed one's toe."

This is very true in many ways, Water, and have found this to be so. That being said, there is a concept in Buddhist and Buddhist-derived systems, that eventually the process becomes less mindful in a conscious sense, and more engrained in oneself. Tell me, do you think we can come to become "mindful people" when we attain a state of constant mindfulness by constant effort towards it?

A Zen saying regarding such is not coming to mind, though I know I have read it in one book...

"Yes. There is the notion that the human birth is precious, allows for a lot of cultivation."

A reasonable conclusion!

Recently I have read Alexandre Dumas' "The Count of Monte Cristo". This tale, like many other dramatic presentations of revenge, , somewhat considers the notion of justice in such a manner that, through righting the wrong - or exacting an equitable price - that a return to balance may be reached. This is, in one way or another, similar to what may be considered the retributive aspects of karma, where evil is returned with evil in turn, and good with that of good, is it not? Perhaps a bit Westernized, in that the Count of Monte Cristo eventually comes to consider himself an agent of Providence, but still somewhat akin to karma, no?

Now, if we are to assume that karma exists, we can say that no matter what happens, one deserves it. That is to say, all things that happen to oneself, and all which happen to others, are all founded in what can be said to be a rigid system which promises a return of that which was given out. A man is killed by a car and he deserves it, a city is flooded and they deserve it, a planet is struck by an asteroid and the planet deserves it, et cetera, et cetera. But what about when it is an intelligent being acting against another?

Suppose Johnathan has been wronged by Steve. Now, according to Karma, Johnathan deserved it, otherwise such would not have occurred. However, whatever happens to Steve is also deserved by him, is it not? So supposing Johnathan returns the favour, he is basically fullfilling the mandate of karma in one way or another, is he not? Acting thus, cannot one say that all actions are fundementally deserved and this can legitimize such exercises as seeking revenge? To essentially legitimize adopting the mantle of karma's charge and claiming the price for it? Indeed, is not a vigilante of sorts like the Count of Monte Cristo, or Batman, then simply human versions of karmaic processes?

In essence, is it proper to conceive of such things as so? Was Ghenghis Kahn right when he declared:

"I am the Flail of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon You."

It would seem to be...yes.


I do believe that the idea you are describing is not, in fact, the Hindu idea of karma. I may be wrong, but I have a Hindu friend who is of the Brahman caste (even though the caste system obviously isn't so rigid any longer in modern India), and he has spent a great deal of his life (albeit short) in the study of his religion and others.

Karma is not a balancing act carried out within this incarnation, but rather is a result of action carried out in the previous incarnation of the the soul (soul isn't the right word, but I forget what the innermost essence of the person is. I know that it is the seperate from the person's memories and intellect, and is actually a part of the larger brahman-atman). It is not punishment for sin, but considered merely a matter of cause and effect. For instance, if you hit some old lady with a car while driving home from a party, and then you wake up the next morning and end up dying in a car accident on the parkway while going to work, the latter action is not a consequence of the former, but it is rather a consequence of action taken in a previous incarnation. It's a bit confusing, but that was the jist of karma when I asked my brahman friend to explain it to me.

Jaster Mareel:

"I do believe that the idea you are describing is not, in fact, the Hindu idea of karma. I may be wrong, but I have a Hindu friend who is of the Brahman caste (even though the caste system obviously isn't so rigid any longer in modern India), and he has spent a great deal of his life (albeit short) in the study of his religion and others."

Well, Hindu and Buddhist at least, but yes.

"Karma is not a balancing act carried out within this incarnation, but rather is a result of action carried out in the previous incarnation of the the soul (soul isn't the right word, but I forget what the innermost essence of the person is. I know that it is the seperate from the person's memories and intellect, and is actually a part of the larger brahman-atman)"

Jiva is probably the word you are looking for.

"It is not punishment for sin, but considered merely a matter of cause and effect. "

Well yes, but in the process, sin is generally punished (in terms of being a negative backlash) whereas virtue is rewarded (in terms of being a positive reward).

"For instance, if you hit some old lady with a car while driving home from a party, and then you wake up the next morning and end up dying in a car accident on the parkway while going to work, the latter action is not a consequence of the former, but it is rather a consequence of action taken in a previous incarnation. It's a bit confusing, but that was the jist of karma when I asked my brahman friend to explain it to me. "

I do not believe it necessitates an action in a past life. Karma can manifest, I do believe, in any incarnation. Sometimes it can manifest instantly, othertimes not.

There are all types of karmas - some manifest in this life and some from others - karma can be sinful - therefore there are descriptions of vikarmic acvtivities - literally means activities that are seperated from beneficial results, distinct from plain old karma - there are also akarmic activities - or activities that cause karma to wind itself up (transcendental activities) - the good news is though that karma is not an eternal principle of the material world - so what is allotted can be blotted, but only to the degree that one accepts transcendental activities

Lightgigantic:

"Karma to wind itself up"?

And by blotted, do you mean completely elliminated, or allowed to exhaust itself without refilling?

Lightgigantic:

"Karma to wind itself up"?

And by blotted, do you mean completely elliminated, or allowed to exhaust itself without refilling?

vikarma is sin

karma is piety

akarma is the transcendental means that doesn't give you a good or bad result but exhausts all pious and impious results of one's activities - in otherwords akarma is activity that is on the liberated platform (or at the very least the means to the liberated platform)

blotted means eliminated , although one may be given a token punishment or good result rather than the full thing just for the sake of purification - in akarma there is no refilling of karma

Lightgigantic:

All right. So you are saying that there is a possibility for grace, where the impact of karma is mitigated by divine agency? That is, a divine mercy in contrast with divine justice?

Yes - according to the person - one is successfully taking shelter of god and the other is successfully taking shelter of material nature, hence the results of their activities are different

Lightgigantic:

Interesting. So how does one seek this remission of karma from God? Moreover, how does God do this?

God does it just like a king can take someone out of jail. IN other words it is by his mercy - getting free from karma is essentially about being gradually socialised around the principles of god's existence, which is a higher stage than merely adhering to morals of goodness (adhering to goodness is a principle of karma and not akarma, it may be helpful to the pursuit of akarmic activites but good karma generates results that necessitate a material existence to reap)

Lightgigantic:

So basically through religious indoctrination, one can get a remission of karma?

But to return to the purpose of this thread: WHat do you suppose of my original scenario and question?

Who said anything about indoctrination?

As to your original idea

Can one be purified by receiving the results of their previous vikarmic activity ?
No - experiencing the result of a bad act may nullify the bad act but to change the nature of one's heart requires something else - in other words the tendency to commit vikarma can still exist even after receiving the results of vikarma

Is anything that happens to anyone a result of karma?
Yes - But it is arguable whether a person can claim to be the transparent medium to god's will on the strength of their resources of violence - just because you can get away with it (apparently) doesn't mean that god sanctioned it with his blessings - basically you can go on performing vikarma until you get a backlog of it that requires you downgrade to a lower planetary system that is capable of dealing out the results of your activities in more appropriate denominations (ie the hellish planets) or you can go on performing karma until you qualify to be upgraded to a more materially opulent situation (heavenly planets), but if you are interested in obtaining a result that is not influenced by old age and death one should perform akarma, and attain the eternal abode beyond temporary heavens and hells

lightgigantic:

"Who said anything about indoctrination?"

Instruction in a religion demands an acceptance of the doctrines. This is a process of indoctrination.

"Can one be purified by receiving the results of their previous vikarmic activity ?
No - experiencing the result of a bad act may nullify the bad act but to change the nature of one's heart requires something else - in other words the tendency to commit vikarma can still exist even after receiving the results of vikarma"

I never asked about purification.

"Is anything that happens to anyone a result of karma?
Yes - But it is arguable whether a person can claim to be the transparent medium to god's will on the strength of their resources of violence - just because you can get away with it (apparently) doesn't mean that god sanctioned it with his blessings - basically you can go on performing vikarma until you get a backlog of it that requires you downgrade to a lower planetary system that is capable of dealing out the results of your activities in more appropriate denominations (ie the hellish planets) or you can go on performing karma until you qualify to be upgraded to a more materially opulent situation (heavenly planets), but if you are interested in obtaining a result that is not influenced by old age and death one should perform akarma, and attain the eternal abode beyond temporary heavens and hells"

BUt if all we do is determined by our karma, and all others do by theirs, can not one be an instrument of such karma by acting in such and such a way?

lightgigantic:

"Who said anything about indoctrination?"

Instruction in a religion demands an acceptance of the doctrines. This is a process of indoctrination.

"Can one be purified by receiving the results of their previous vikarmic activity ?
No - experiencing the result of a bad act may nullify the bad act but to change the nature of one's heart requires something else - in other words the tendency to commit vikarma can still exist even after receiving the results of vikarma"

I never asked about purification. ?


You were asking about how a person gets paid back for a bad activity - that is a type of purification - punishment is atype of purification if the act was criminal - I guess the word purification gives you other connotations ....

"Is anything that happens to anyone a result of karma?
Yes - But it is arguable whether a person can claim to be the transparent medium to god's will on the strength of their resources of violence - just because you can get away with it (apparently) doesn't mean that god sanctioned it with his blessings - basically you can go on performing vikarma until you get a backlog of it that requires you downgrade to a lower planetary system that is capable of dealing out the results of your activities in more appropriate denominations (ie the hellish planets) or you can go on performing karma until you qualify to be upgraded to a more materially opulent situation (heavenly planets), but if you are interested in obtaining a result that is not influenced by old age and death one should perform akarma, and attain the eternal abode beyond temporary heavens and hells"

BUt if all we do is determined by our karma, and all others do by theirs, can not one be an instrument of such karma by acting in such and such a way?

Instrument of karma, but an instrument is guided by an authority - in otherwords what a person commonly expresses as their free will is actually directed according to our rememberance, knowledge and forgetfulness, which is the means by which god controls a conditioned entity

lightgigantic:

"You were asking about how a person gets paid back for a bad activity - that is a type of purification - punishment is atype of purification if the act was criminal - I guess the word purification gives you other connotations ...."

Okay. Understood.

"Instrument of karma, but an instrument is guided by an authority - in otherwords what a person commonly expresses as their free will is actually directed according to our rememberance, knowledge and forgetfulness, which is the means by which god controls a conditioned entity"

So wait, now you are claiming we are free, but controlled?

lightgigantic:

"You were asking about how a person gets paid back for a bad activity - that is a type of purification - punishment is atype of purification if the act was criminal - I guess the word purification gives you other connotations ...."

Okay. Understood.

"Instrument of karma, but an instrument is guided by an authority - in otherwords what a person commonly expresses as their free will is actually directed according to our rememberance, knowledge and forgetfulness, which is the means by which god controls a conditioned entity"

So wait, now you are claiming we are free, but controlled?

We are controlled by cause and effect - our scope for expressing free will is incredibly miniscule - it boils down to either accepting the material or spiritual as shelter - everything else is carried out by the results of action (You are free to act but you are not entitled to the fruits of action - never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activity (because the results are delivered by superior arrangement) and never be attached to not performing your duty - B.Gita)

LightGigantic:

So we're basically determined but for a capacity to choose the spiritual v. the material? Why is this not conditioned? Moreover, why ought we to perform our duty if even if we chose not to, it would not be chosen for us?

LightGigantic:

So we're basically determined but for a capacity to choose the spiritual v. the material? Why is this not conditioned? Moreover, why ought we to perform our duty if even if we chose not to, it would not be chosen for us?

Conditioned in the sense that even a free man is conditoned the moment he trangresses the established laws for freedom (eg - a murderer is put in jail) - to be completely free, svarat, is a quality of god and not the living entity.

Why should we perform our duty? Because if you choose not to you are violating your allotted path in life (a path you have arived at due to your negligence/acceptance of your previous life paths - ie karma) - for instance it is not very progressive (even apeaking materially in terms of society, what to speak of spiritually) for a person to be innvolved in pregnancy and renounce the duties of parenthood. Bgita also talks of 3 types of attitude to duty, namely ignorance (one gives up the performance of duty because they are not aware of what the duties are in the first place), passion (one thinks "I know I should do this, but ...." , in otherwords they know but think it is too difficult to perform) and the other is goodness (where they perform their duty regardless of ideas of immediate personal pleasure or unpleasantness) - the first two are conducive to suffering and the last is conducive to long term happiness - so one ought to perform their duty to be happy.

Okay, I'll speak out, even though I admit I have not studied Karma or hindu/buddhist religions, well, at all. I read this book "commentaries on The Third Dalai Lamas book of golden actions" or something like it, and had some classes on "foreign religions" but that's about it..

Since proving stuff like "spiritual cycle of karma" or "god" is basically impossible, I offer a diffrent view on things; Rather try to prove the idea of karma by showing how it also manifests on physical level. (god just can't be proved like that..)

The way I understand the wheel of karma is repeating mistakes. You make a mistake, and then you suffer for it. This suffering clouds your mind and you repeat it in ignorance (by not wanting to admit you did wrong to begin with). Hence history repeats itself for as many times as it takes to do it right. So the only way to escape the wheel of karma (or dharma?) is to gain enlightnment (wisdom) and break the chain.

A vivid example: Terrorists blow something up, death ensures. The receiving country (say Israel) attacks the terrorists homeland and blow something up. This, however, increases terrorism and more things blow up. Things escalate, and if we assume reincarnation, then you always get born into a world you left behind. If you left the world in a worse state than you came in, then it will always be worse when you come back in. And vice versa, of course.

So, to return to the Agent Of Karma (which is a really cool title, by the way!), he would be someone who knows why the wheel of karma turns, and would use this to his "benefit". Or, where others go wandering in circles, he has broken free (to some degree), and returns to help others, forcibly if must be. He would radiate rightousness (Defined as "being right", not as self-rightousness, which is just "pretending to be right"), and others would follow him. And his enemies would unconciously see, that their enemy is better than them. And since "let the better man win" is the basis of all wars, they already know they are doomed. And are, to an extent, happy that someone will finally bring them the answer. Some surrender, knowing a better king has come to rule them, others resist, but their will is weak and they offer little resistance. They do not wish to win, seeing as this would create a worse world. And the mongol warriors would fight harder, knowing it would create a better world.

Assuming that Karma is a conscious force trying to improve the world ("god"), it would then side with this agent ("god is with us!"), or at least impair it to a lesser degree than their enemies.
Assuming (like I do) that Karma is rather a network of energies waiting or hoping to manifest in whatever way they can (usually through the means they were created), the agent of karma could simply tap into these energies (assume, for example, the law of symbolism..), and it would empower him. (This would seem to impart that bad karma seeks to take physical manifestation when you decline to take it in in the mental level; It seeks to shape you in physical level if you refuse to be changed in the mental..?)

But what if his enemies learned from their mistakes before he got there to smite them? Wouldn't karma then leave our Sword of Vengeance? The will returning to commanders and flowing back to troops, pesantry rising to arms, men fighting with vigor and the will of the mongols suddenly wavering? I guess it would be a fight between equals. But then Khans own karma, aquired when HE killed and burned during the conquest, would come to empower his enemies (physically: his actions gave good propaganda -material..). Wouldn't it? This would indicate that your actions always gain you karma of some sort, EVEN if you were helped by karma to do it. And what said about not having free will about it; Rubbish. Nostadamus said it best when he said that people often follow the momentum of fate, but that they do so willingly, guided by their delusions.

In english; You're always responsible for your actions, even when you "have" to take them in order to avoid some other effect. So if you have to avenge, you'll have to find a way that does not have nasty side-effects.

(didn't I post this already?)
perpelxity,
Of course. Buddhism is liberation from the wheel of karma. Without Buddhism, or wisdom as it could be crudely translated, karma does excatly as was mentioned.

You're just assuming karma is a clerical buddhist tool of threatning the dumb countryfolk, not an explanation to a phenomenon. Your bias betrays you :P

NO? Did I read EVERY THREAD ON THE SITE UP TILL NOW? That would be too much.

And uh, it's not. Karma is about vengance, Buddhism is about liberation from it. I did state this, though, so what did you mean by that? In sentences if possible.

Also, "Paranoia is autonomous, not inflicted.", What are you trying to say? Implication is not cool if it does not convey the message.

(And no, I'm not gonna read the thread. This here is a conversation, not a flashback. And I made the assumptions of anti-religionism on basis of bias, of course :P)