Michael,

While that was a lovely example, I was expecting a different one...

I think the reason this topic got confusing (and still feels a little so to me) is because we've called it an "apple" for so long, now you're telling us to call it an "orange". Not that you're wrong, it's just against the current of what we 'know/knew'.

Karma was - good actions can lead to good things... bad actions lead to bad things... Well, that makes sense. Then you say, good actions can lead to bad things... Well, that also makes sense. But then the definition of this 'action' (this karma) seems unclear.

I guess it feels like the good=good should be called one thing and the good=bad is another. While they both make sense by whatever situtaion, it makes defining them in one catagory a little bit harder. The label is getting in the way.

So while the two articles bring to light that doing good IS good and should produce good, you have to remember that sometimes our 'good' intentions lead to unfortunate things.

Perhaps your message was just not to deal in absolutes, no matter what it's called? Am I close?

Peace,
Carolyn

Carolyn: I am not asking that an apple now be called an orange, rather pointing out that what is an apple is much more complicated and subtle than just that. What you missed was that karma is action and is neither good nor bad. That is the Western misinterpretation. The consequences are what are good or bad, and as you said, sometimes the outcomes are bad when we intend good. More to the point, I think I am saying that if you have a handful of seeds and you plant them, you may have an expectation of which type of tree will grow...but, while you may expect an apple tree, you get an orange tree. Capice? Blessings, Michael