A lot of Westerners think they know what Karma means (that when you do something good, good things happen to you, and when you do something bad, bad things happen to you, to balance your life out), but really, that's not what it means. If you can explain Karma so that someone who hasn't grown up with the concept can understand it, it might make a good hub.
sort by best latest
As of yet, I haven't seen a real "necessary and sufficient" definition of "right," "wrong," "good," or "evil," so until something comes along that holds in all contexts, I tend to consider their particular polarities as meaningless.
IdeaMan1, of course we have relative "right" and "wrong" which self (ego) considers. What is right for the hunter is not right for the duck. But we also have absolute right -- spiritual awakening -- or, wrong -- turning toward darkness (ego).
lone77star, your descriptions don't hold in all contexts, and thus the terms hold no meaning. "Right" as utilized in the examples you give describes "expected behavior." As to "absolute right," that points to an idea that may prove unnecessary. ...
Spiritual awakening also has levels and consequences and it is within the awakening process where much karma is lost/gained - mainly because there is more sense of awareness. Unfortunately - aware at what level and to what.
I think what I'm challenging, really, is the need for a "signed value" in terms of karma over a more nuanced, multidimensional vector construct when it comes to cause and effect. Restricting karma to one dimension fits parsimony, but it seems naive.
I agree that it doesn't feel one dimensional. I've known spiritual masters who balk at bringing down a rational explanation to the complexities they see in karma. Perhaps the concept could be explained, but how many would understand it.
Jewels, your response I really enjoyed and it prompted me to more thoroughly explain my answer. I posted a Hub called 'Karma Unfolded' and in it I quoted a part of your response. Thank you for the inspiration.