Tom Campbell has a recent Youtube video of an interview with Prof Eric Cunningham that I think brings out some interesting aspects of karma / free choice in relationship to how we interpret our history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wxBmOc6ot8

I agree.  The scripted bit is annoying, though this isn't TC's usual style.  He probably has a couple hundred videos on YouTube and this is the first one I've seen where this was done.  If I'm not mistaken, these were Q & A's taken from a seminar he did.

Quote:

lol... I'd think a historian would be "down to earth", however, to me it's about the content, rather than the presentation.  As long as the content gives pause for thought, I'm ok with other people's idiosyncrasies now and then.
Quote:

Yes, I'm in agreement, too.  Karma is simply "consequence" of any action, including thoughts where pattern is developed.

K

Not sure that I believe love overrides karma.  More that if we turn toward love and forgiveness, the natural consequence (karma) is to break the cycle of suffering.  So to my way of thinking, karma works the same, whether in ego-related thinking (which leads to action/reaction consequence) or in loving thought (which leads to loving consequence and breaks the cycle of suffering). 

My thoughts, anyway.

M

My understanding is a bit different from what you're describing.  Everyone is responsible for their own karma, which is held within one's own consciousness and is an accumulation of past choices, experiences and their understanding / interpretation of those experiences.  Their karma (what is held within their own consciousness) in a sense dictates the most likely probabilities for their thoughts and actions, though freedom of choice is always available. 

In your example, the man that punched someone was driven by his accumulated karma.  His intent, which is the mechanism that propels consciousness, was motivated by what we call fear at the being (karmic) level.  The man that took the punch demonstrated his personal karma in which his intent was motivated by what we call love at the being (karmic) level.  Just because the second man did not punch the first man back does not nullify the first man's karma, though it could perhaps give the first man the experience of seeing love in action or in the sense that it may at least give him pause for thought and this would be consequence in action, but not nullification.

The first man's karma would not be nullified or even changed very much until he, through personal experience, was able to make different choices that would promote a different way of being, thinking, acting that created different patterns than what he had previously created.

In other words, all of our reactions are a reflection of our accumulated karma (patterns developed within personal consciousness) and the only one that can change / nullify negative karma is our self.  We do that by making different choices about how we feel, think, act, and eventually we change our karmic patterns, our consciousness.  No one can do that for us because each of us is responsible for the creation of our own karma/consciousness.  Certainly we can and do learn from our interactions with each other, still, only we can ultimately change ourselves at the being level.

K

My own experiences with karma show it to be much more of a general action/reaction than some may think.  We attract to us that which we put out there.  Love, kindness anger, hate.  I do not see people immediately suffering the exact same fate after they act cruelly.  Rather, their hateful action leads to consequences which bring more misery and hate into their own lives.  I do not believe there is a cosmic justice system at play here or a "judging."  It just is.   We are, I believe, meant to see that thought = action = manifestation in the physical world.  It can be a deeply moving spiritual evolution for those who recognize the process.  Or, it can be an endless cycle of negativity without any understanding of what is going on. 


M

Hi Roger,

It has been my experience that there are random events and energies we constantly interact with each day.  An accident can be and often is simply be an accident.  To my way of thinking, karma can not be simplified to giving a direct immediate response to every action.  So an accidental killing, etc. does not, in my opinion generate negative karma, nor is it necessarily "payback."  It is the intent combined with the action that seems to change probabilities and generate circumstances in our lives.

A tsunami kills on occasion over 100,000 people within hours in Indonesia.  The idea that each and every person who was killed "deserved" that or "chose" that death is patently absurd.  It was a force of nature.  It was not generated with intent.  In short, it fell outside of the laws of karma. 

I think that with introspection, while we are alive we can all trace our thoughts and actions and see how we got to our current life circumstance.  I don't think all of us require a life review or get one, but I just don't know. 

M