Karmic equilibrium

[Amorphos]

Karmic equilibrium

Is success wrong? By this I don’t mean that doing your job well is wrong, I am speaking of success more how we think of celebrities, entrepreneurs, big businessmen etc.

Societal equilbrium is never fully possible because man is not generally wise, only particularly so. However I have my worries about the effects of extremes in a way I have difficulty putting words too, so while we may not reach a karmic medium/universal balance, we can build our societies in a far more balanced way. We may see the problem as where modern society is like a sine-wave, and what should be our eternal aim is a flat line. For every up there is a down, yet equally in the greater scheme of things, every up causes a down! For every superstar there are people who suffer greatly, it is my intuition that often they are off the same archetype ~ as if there is even a manner to the dispersal of universal karma.

Perhaps infinity has an ‘auto-calc’ lols, one that if we were to take the very best moment of joy [for most, the orgasm] in our lives, and contrast it with an absolute absence, this would create a universal mean average; this is the upper result of the equation and is the bliss we feel upon entering nirvana.
On a societal level the auto-calc disperses karma amongst us by kind [archetype], relative to our actions ~ yet on the universal level this is indirect, where one action pushes the line up, it equally creates its equal and opposite. Actions that cause great joy in some, may cause suffering in others even if the intent is within itself ethical.

On a political level this seams somewhat obvious [to me anyway], the very few have most and their actions cause ill in many others.

oneupmanship
Culture is a set of ideas. If you see these ideas as better to others you will see you’re culture as better. same goes for monarchy or anybody [or any thing] that we put on a pedestal, its a way of making ourselves think we are better than others by casual affiliation and partisanship.

Maybe what I am saying is, that rather than seeing everything form an individual perspective, karma, spirituality and politics should all be seen on the universal; ‘that we are all part of it’. just as with knowledge, the more one knows, then the more one can know a given thing [when we try to describe things we tend to have to describe a whole host of other things in order to more fully know what that thing is], is it also true that; to correct one thing we have to correct everything [to our best degree].

[anon]

From a Buddhist perspective, karma should be understood in light of interdependence. Which is I think basically what you’re saying.

I don’t think success is wrong, but for instance according to the buddhist teachings the great thing about material success is the opportunity it affords you to be materially generous. I don’t think the point is some sort of socialist agenda though. Hierarchies are natural - it’s just misguided to believe in them as if they reflect some underlying truth about people’s worth.

[Amorphos]

From a Buddhist perspective, karma should be understood in light of interdependence. Which is I think basically what you’re saying

.

Yes, though I feel many interpret it from an individual perspective esp in dharmic teachings? though it could be that those teachings are supposed to be considered together and hence would have the universal effect.

I don’t think success is wrong, but for instance according to the buddhist teachings the great thing about material success is the opportunity it affords you to be materially generous.

Again a matter of interpretation, for me the simple act of renouncing all his material wealth, meant the Buddha was renouncing materialism ~ from a simplistic pov of course.

I don’t think the point is some sort of socialist agenda though.

Well socialism nor anything like it was around in Buddha’s time of course, if he thought it possible I wonder what he would think.

Aside from Buddhism how do you view universal karma? ~ do the two ideas not naturally form an equilibrium [to as much as we could arrive at such a thing].

[anon]

@quetzalcoatl

From a Buddhist perspective, karma should be understood in light of interdependence. Which is I think basically what you’re saying

.
Yes, though I feel many interpret it from an individual perspective esp in dharmic teachings? though it could be that those teachings are supposed to be considered together and hence would have the universal effect.

Well both are taught, and there is some tension between the two concepts. So it’s up to the practitioner to struggle with that.

I don’t think success is wrong, but for instance according to the buddhist teachings the great thing about material success is the opportunity it affords you to be materially generous.

Again a matter of interpretation, for me the simple act of renouncing all his material wealth, meant the Buddha was renouncing materialism ~ from a simplistic pov of course.

Sure. I think the question though is did he renounce it as a “sin”? I don’t think he did. People do become wealthy, and that in itself isn’t a problem. The way it happens is often problematic, attachment to wealth is problematic, etc.

I don’t think the point is some sort of socialist agenda though.

Well socialism nor anything like it was around in Buddha’s time of course, if he thought it possible I wonder what he would think.

I wonder. Political systems come and go, and work or not based on a variety of factors that themselves come and go. I don’t think any political system is inherently one thing or another.

Aside from Buddhism how do you view universal karma? ~ do the two ideas not naturally form an equilibrium [to as much as we could arrive at such a thing].

What do you mean exactly by universal karma? There is group karma - that I’m an American is something I share with all other Americans. That is our common karma. What two ideas are you referring to? Individual karma and interdependence?

[Amorphos]

btw, i add the suffix universal so as the utterance in the mind reiterates the idea of karma on a grand scale.

I think the question though is did he renounce it as a “sin”? I don’t think he did.

The act itself is a renunciation surely, could he not have helped more by remaining a prince? Indeed as you say the attachment is as always, a problem ~ a somewhat fundamental one wouldn’t you say?

People do become wealthy, and that in itself isn’t a problem.

Now imagine all people are tied to a line [{universal} karma], and that each set of actions create causal forces accordingly. You have one force pushing the line upwards [the rich] which creates a force of the opposite.

wonder. Political systems come and go, and work or not based on a variety of factors that themselves come and go. I don’t think any political system is inherently one thing or another.

Can we say that non-attachment alone would create a form of politics, hence if we are to follow the buddhas ways then said politics would ensue.
This isn’t a Buddhist thread of course, I am more thinking of it in terms of causal forces and other universals.

Individual karma and interdependence?

Yes sorry for not explaining well.

[anon]

@quetzalcoatl

btw, i add the suffix universal so as the utterance in the mind reiterates the idea of karma on a grand scale.

I think the question though is did he renounce it as a “sin”? I don’t think he did.

The act itself is a renunciation surely, could he not have helped more by remaining a prince? Indeed as you say the attachment is as always, a problem ~ a somewhat fundamental one wouldn’t you say?

Yes, I would say so.

People do become wealthy, and that in itself isn’t a problem.

Now imagine all people are tied to a line [{universal} karma], and that each set of actions create causal forces accordingly. You have one force pushing the line upwards [the rich] which creates a force of the opposite.

Perhaps, I’m not sure. Are you positive there is such a “line” though? What is wealth? Earlier in the world’s history, say in caveman days, was everyone poor? Or was there this same radical disparity in wealth? Was some guy with a year’s supply of mammoth in the freezer “wealthy”? If yes, did his supply of mammoth take away from the others? What if they all had enough mammoth for a few days only, considered this normal, and had a wealth of family and friends they could count on to help out. They considered the “rich” man to be kind of screwed up, and felt sorry for him. Perhaps they were all happy, and that one man seemed distinctly unhappy. They might have even considered him “poor”.

If there is such a “line”, would pulling it taught be a good or bad thing?

I wonder. Political systems come and go, and work or not based on a variety of factors that themselves come and go. I don’t think any political system is inherently one thing or another.

Can we say that non-attachment alone would create a form of politics, hence if we are to follow the buddhas ways then said politics would ensue.

I don’t think so personally. Let’s take capitalism versus socialism. How could it be claimed that Buddhist politics is more aligned with one than the other? I think for whatever argument is made in support of one side or the other, I could reasonably argue against it.

[Amorphos]

Are you positive there is such a “line” though? What is wealth? Earlier in the world’s history, say in caveman days, was everyone poor?

Good point! Well the line is analogous to causal effects, cavemen may have had far simpler lives with little wealth and hence little karmic effect from that. In today’s societies you have far greater extremes and hence greater effect.

If there is such a “line”, would pulling it taught be a good or bad thing?

I am not sure what you mean, a level line would approximate as balance ~ and yes I think that would be a good thing.

Let’s take capitalism versus socialism. How could it be claimed that Buddhist politics is more aligned with one than the other? I think for whatever argument is made in support of one side or the other, I could reasonably argue against it.

If the buddhas teachings don’t attempt at equality then it is surely lacking, though I think it makes a very good attempt at it. Let us take ‘non-attachment‘, there’s no way this can be attributed to capitalism and to grasping at material things generally.

we must ask ourselves if we take our ancient wisemen out of context, both Buddhism and Christianity were very much anti capitalist, yet sure they can be twisted into agreeing with it [e.g. Christianity says; ‘give unto Caesar what is Caesars’], which is something of a disservice don’t you think.

[anon]

@quetzalcoatl

Are you positive there is such a “line” though? What is wealth? Earlier in the world’s history, say in caveman days, was everyone poor?

Good point! Well the line is analogous to causal effects, cavemen may have had far simpler lives with little wealth and hence little karmic effect from that. In today’s societies you have far greater extremes and hence greater effect.

Interesting point. I’m open to that line of thinking. It’s not how karma is traditionally taught, but hey.

If there is such a “line”, would pulling it taught be a good or bad thing?

I am not sure what you mean, a level line would approximate as balance ~ and yes I think that would be a good thing.

People generally strive for the things they think are good. So if this “level line” is a “good thing”, what would you do to make it happen?

Let’s take capitalism versus socialism. How could it be claimed that Buddhist politics is more aligned with one than the other? I think for whatever argument is made in support of one side or the other, I could reasonably argue against it.

If the buddhas teachings don’t attempt at equality then it is surely lacking, though I think it makes a very good attempt at it. Let us take ‘non-attachment‘, there’s no way this can be attributed to capitalism and to grasping at material things generally.

Capitalism is a system, not a person. The capitalist Buddhist would surely argue that it’s not the government’s job to force some people to be generous to other people. After all, that could be interpreted as stealing, which is “wrong conduct” according to Buddhist ethics.

we must ask ourselves if we take our ancient wisemen out of context, both Buddhism and Christianity were very much anti capitalist, yet sure they can be twisted into agreeing with it [e.g. Christianity says; ‘give unto Caesar what is Caesars’], which is something of a disservice don’t you think.

I don’t think either Buddhism or Christianity placed any stress on political systems. Isn’t that the meaning of “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”?

[Amorphos]

People generally strive for the things they think are good. So if this “level line” is a “good thing”, what would you do to make it happen?

Perhaps it is more a case of ‘not doing’, there are different kinds of success, some more honest than others. I find it difficult to believe that a rich man has got there without exploiting people along the way [though mostly not their fault but the systems]. Sometimes what is good tends to be detrimental to others, the higher we go the more this is the case imho.

The capitalist Buddhist would surely argue that it’s not the government’s job to force some people to be generous to other people.

A gift received is not theft. Creaming the wealth of the many for the few is theft. Yet for sure the govt should make people give, they should create a fair and equal ‘system’ for all, to as greater degree as possible. People only rip others of if the system is conducive to that.

I don’t think either Buddhism or Christianity placed any stress on political systems. Isn’t that the meaning of “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”?

Inspired! Unfortunately I think the context of the line was alas more literal, jesus was giving Caesar what he wanted. I could be wrong about that, and I will certainly use your meaning here in the future if that’s ok.

[anon]

@quetzalcoatl

People generally strive for the things they think are good. So if this “level line” is a “good thing”, what would you do to make it happen?

Perhaps it is more a case of ‘not doing’, there are different kinds of success, some more honest than others. I find it difficult to believe that a rich man has got there without exploiting people along the way [though mostly not their fault but the systems]. Sometimes what is good tends to be detrimental to others, the higher we go the more this is the case imho.

Makes sense to me. I just think it’s not necessarily the case. I also don’t think wealth is inherently one thing or another. Let’s say you were born wealthy. Would giving it all away really be the best thing to do? Maybe people would just do drugs with the money. Do you think “compassionate conservative” is necessarily an oxymoron?

The capitalist Buddhist would surely argue that it’s not the government’s job to force some people to be generous to other people.

A gift received is not theft. Creaming the wealth of the many for the few is theft. Yet for sure the govt should make people give, they should create a fair and equal ‘system’ for all, to as greater degree as possible. People only rip others of if the system is conducive to that.

Ok, that’s your opinion. Other opinions about it also seem pretty reasonable to me.

I’m a little confused though. What does that first sentence refer to?

I don’t think either Buddhism or Christianity placed any stress on political systems. Isn’t that the meaning of “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”?

Inspired! Unfortunately I think the context of the line was alas more literal, jesus was giving Caesar what he wanted. I could be wrong about that, and I will certainly use your meaning here in the future if that’s ok.

I’m glad you like it, use it however you want. To be honest I thought it was the standard interpretation.

[Amorphos]

I also don’t think wealth is inherently one thing or another. Let’s say you were born wealthy. Would giving it all away really be the best thing to do? Maybe people would just do drugs with the money.

Giving it all up is what Buddha did, but people can do better things than give it away e.g form cooperatives so the money from their industries are spread more evenly. Inheritance is not ones fault, if we are to say that we have the right to attain wealth, then pass it onto our children then that denies others the same freedom to get to the top [as all the wealth is kept within a select few hands, s like say, fuedalism].

Do you think “compassionate conservative” is necessarily an oxymoron?

Probably not, my impression is that when conservatives have power the poor are poorer, rich richer, though apparently not on paper. Their attitude to say the unemployed seams a little Victorian, as if it is the individuals fault. Where obviously if you have a system that goes up and down like the waves of the ocean, then there will be casualties of that.

I’m a little confused though. What does that first sentence refer to?

The bolded text quoted below, which seamed to infur that govt taking money and spreading it around was theft.

The capitalist Buddhist would surely argue that it’s not the government’s job to force some people to be generous to other people. After all, that could be interpreted as stealing

To be honest I thought it was the standard interpretation.

Oh ok, I cannot remember the context exactly, but I though jesus was asked what to do with the romans, hence to me it meant literally to let them have what they have. In debates with Christians, I asked if their religion was compatible with capitalism [in the religion section here too], and that reply cam up time and again, as a defence of capitalism.

[anon]

Ok, well nice talking to you Quetzalcoatl. Perhaps since I’m fairly non-political I interpret things in a fairly non-political way - and vice versa for you. It’s interesting stuff.

[Amorphos]

indeed. thank you

[The_Last_Man]

as opposed to the sin wave, wouldnt reaching a flatline be the equivolent of death, i.e. nonmovement?

[Amorphos]

as opposed to the sin wave, wouldnt reaching a flatline be the equivolent of death, i.e. nonmovement?

I can see the obvious correlation in terms but not meaning, the flat line is balance and equality. It cannot be reached of course, the idea is that one must endeavour to lessen the extremes like rich/poor, wiseman/fool etc.

[The_Last_Man]

@quetzalcoatl

as opposed to the sin wave, wouldnt reaching a flatline be the equivolent of death, i.e. nonmovement?

I can see the obvious correlation in terms but not meaning, the flat line is balance and equality. It cannot be reached of course, the idea is that one must endeavour to lessen the extremes like rich/poor, wiseman/fool etc.

I see what you are saying. On the other hand, however, what if differences such as rich/poor, wiseman/fool are an essential part of human interrelations? What if, psychologically and physically, we cannot help but be vastly different; and what if nature and the ecosystems we live in are too complex to ever control enough to equalize external factors enough to create the kind of flatline you envision?

It is possible that our ideals of equality and lessening extremes is just a sympathetic reaction and a misunderstanding of the nature of life itself. For example, leveling out conditions like this would create social and individual changes. We might lose all our fools, say, but also all of our wisemen. Equality, where it cannot raise everyone up to one common level, will have to bring everyone down to a common one. And as the latter represents the path of least resistance, it will be the one chosen in the majority of cases, on all levels.

I personally see balance and equality as the healthy and natural existence of the sine wave. The movement from side to side, one to the other, following natural pathways. Trying to either push cycles to far to extremes OR to close together (too flat) would represent an ‘imbalance’. At least that is how I see it.

[Oughtist]

I like that idea of the sine wave, LM. Though I’d question how natural it actually is, given at least the status quo of disruption (i.e. when was disruption not the nature of things). In any case, when the line is too taut, it snaps. So there needs to be the attempt not to have it be somewhat slack. And if it is too slack then Enron becomes the Rule. So, maybe theres a sine wave action in the pendulum between avoiding the extremes. But it is always misshapen, and requires constant application of awareness of circumstance… and circumstance is a nebulous source of guidance, and thus it dependently coarises that we’re left in our natural state of collective disequilibruim. Hmmm… did I make that too much of a downer? There’s an upside, too: we get to think.

[Amorphos]

I personally see balance and equality as the healthy and natural existence of the sine wave. The movement from side to side, one to the other, following natural pathways. Trying to either push cycles to far to extremes OR to close together (too flat) would represent an ‘imbalance’. At least that is how I see it.

Economically it is preferable to be more balance, I don’t particularly like where we find ourselves now. To change this we will need to change conditions to be more balanced, extremes cause too much suffering.

I do however agree with your earlier points to some degree, that extremes create the difference which drives the human condition. On the other hand I feel it is proportional, we don’t really want loads of difference as it gets chaotic. As an example I have been debating a skeleton philosophy over at the druids forums, and nobody can agree on a single point ~ too much individualism and difference. Equally political extremes [e.g. taliban] don’t necessarily create positive dissidence, they can just cause chaos via idiocy.

leveling out conditions like this would create social and individual changes. We might lose all our fools, say, but also all of our wisemen.

Now let us see this on a practical level, if you educate people well, do you loose our fools and gain no wisemen?

[The_Last_Man]

@quetzalcoatl

I personally see balance and equality as the healthy and natural existence of the sine wave. The movement from side to side, one to the other, following natural pathways. Trying to either push cycles to far to extremes OR to close together (too flat) would represent an ‘imbalance’. At least that is how I see it.

Economically it is preferable to be more balance, I don’t particularly like where we find ourselves now. To change this we will need to change conditions to be more balanced, extremes cause too much suffering.

Yes this is true, suffering arises from imbalance. But suffering is also necessary, and is usually the cause of acheivment and growth. Suffering creates a void, a pressure, which life resists. But I do agree with you that economically or politically, we should strive to minimize the amount of suffering, if only because we desire to live in a world where we do not have to suffer overly much.

I do however agree with your earlier points to some degree, that extremes create the difference which drives the human condition. On the other hand I feel it is proportional, we don’t really want loads of difference as it gets chaotic. As an example I have been debating a skeleton philosophy over at the druids forums, and nobody can agree on a single point ~ too much individualism and difference. Equally political extremes [e.g. taliban] don’t necessarily create positive dissidence, they can just cause chaos via idiocy.

Yes, everything needs to find its natural balance. Extremes always change as well, nothing is ever really stable. So its a growing process. Society grows just like any other living organism. Growing pains and adjustments, learning from mistakes and all that, are to be expected.

leveling out conditions like this would create social and individual changes. We might lose all our fools, say, but also all of our wisemen.

Now let us see this on a practical level, if you educate people well, do you loose our fools and gain no wisemen?

Education definitely helps. But in the end, people only learn what they want to, only become what they already are. That of course isnt to disparage education itself, only to make sure that we see it within its own limits.

[Amorphos]

economically or politically, we should strive to minimize the amount of suffering, if only because we desire to live in a world where we do not have to suffer overly much.

An eternal triangle;

Folly
Suffering
Wisdom

A three-sided coin? I agree with everything you said about suffering, and about difference as important aspects of what we are and become. If though, this is a three fold equation, then surely there is the potential for suffering to result in folly and the general detriment of the human condition. One only has to think of places e.g. Africa, where suffering is stifling!

Education definitely helps. But in the end, people only learn what they want to, only become what they already are.

I agree that humans have a given genetic disposition to learning, then that environmental factors are also limiting. Would you say that humanities ‘limits’ have changed and improved over time, thus the limit is another organic aspect of the equation.