Good Karma, Bad Karma?

Posted 10/8/06 (By Travis)

10/8/06 Neoperspectives.com

    Karma is a term that has been bandied about fairly loosely in common culture. Synonymous with the old expression, 'What goes around comes around', the interpreted meanings of Karma span the spectrum, from cute but meaningless expression to a foundational law of spiritual reality.

    IMHO, in my humble opinion, there are two perspectives, possible phenomena, which legitimize the functional meaning of the phrase without laying judgment on the more epistemological claims. 

    The first starts with the premise that good acts and thoughts, resulting from each other or increased awareness/introspection (and vice versa), bring their own internal rewards. Helping others, achieving goals, controlling the mind, and advancing and improving oneself brings both short and, most especially, long term happiness. Cognitive dissonance between the higher mind and lower animalistic nature is minimized and positive emotions are generated, better said, they are uncovered and freed to elevation. Now, this may be stating the obvious, but when we combine it with our knowledge of how human beings interact, this facet of Karma becomes clearer. 

    It was somewhat surprising to hear a prominent physician remark, "Whether you like it or not, or are aware of it or not, you will treat your patients differently. You will be more careful, slower, thoughtful, and caring with the ones you like as compared to the ones you don't like. If I really don't like a patient, I won't treat them in order to keep the standard of my care high." (For context, he mostly does nonemergency elective procedures). Whether doctors should take their personal opinions to this level is anyone's judgment call, but the underlying pattern undoubtedly exists and is present in all professions and relationships, if we are honest and humble enough to admit and discover it. 

    This being the case, it is apparent how good acts and deeds to others around you will be returned, either through direct knowledge and reciprocation of your actions, or indirectly, simply because your resultant happiness makes you likeable. 

    The second, subtler, Karmic phenomena is less esoteric and more of a product of networking and environmental theory. As we interact with our various social groups we add something to the nature of each. Without going out on a Consciousness limb, the information exchanges and natures of groups of connected persons are reflective of said membership. At any given time one is adding, for lack of a better term, 'positive energy' (positiviness, ie making the group better, increasing the group happiness) or 'negative energy' to each network. Of course, it is often difficult to define exactly what positive and negative 'energy' is, but it can be no more challenging than the analogous interpretations of the 'good and moral acts' of the aforementioned first perspective.

    The sum of all our contributions to our various networks and they to each other up to and including the ultimate aggregate network, effect the makeup of these networks, which in turn combine to have a profound impact on every aspect of our lives, fulfilling the karmic prerequisite. But which is more important, the chicken or the egg? Unfortunately, I'd think, we have a tendency to overestimate our ability to contribute positive energy and downplay the degradations of negative energy on our psych. Thus, at least initially, it is important to choose our environments, friends, relationships, and activities carefully, recognizing our extreme fragility, attempting to maximize the 'positive energy' (increased moral improvements/happiness) we receive. After all, how can we contribute positive energy to our networks with a log in our own eye? 

    This reminds me a bit of author Ayn Rand's brush with treating relationships as capitalistic goods and services, a rather fascinating framework, IMO. What do you give and receive from each relationship? Since we all have different wants and needs and posses different traits of varying value to others, do we not, in effect, participate in a massive  'nonmaterial' market, unregulated I might add :), with other 'cognitive traders' around us? Luckily, we can once again discard the staid viewpoint of our friends on the left, who would surely believe there is only a 'fixed amount' of 'cognitive resources' that must be divvied up equally, and perhaps even taxed... I'm only kidding, but in truth each of us can create our own 'cognitive/emotional/moral wealth', improve ourselves and increase our happiness and awareness without taking anything away from anyone else. In fact, just as financial wealth creation spreads prosperity and benefits everyone, so too does a rising tide raise all boats, the contagiousness of personal advancement, morality, and happiness, is equally as beautiful in its simplicity.