Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot
Notice that the Dalai Lama did not say, "Oh, but karma is never instant. It is exceedingly slow."
Kanzeon, I think you do not appreciate the grace I have exhibited in this thread. I have been tactfully correcting only a few of your misconceptions, so as to save you from too much embarrassment.
You don't exhibit any form of grace with which I am familiar.
First: did I say, as you said above, that karma is NEVER instant? No, I said it was ALMOST NEVER instant.
Did the Dalai Lama, in the Q&A, state that karma is frequently or infrequently instant? The word instant was contained in the question, not the answer. In fact he gives no estimate as to the averages.
The Dalai Lama actually says in this quote:
1. The speed of karmic consequence is dependent on its intensity;
2. The speed of karmic consequence is dependent on other conditions.
Accordingly, according to this analysis, a very intense karmic action which is hastened in its effects could be instant. Speed could be entirely conferred by one or the other, perhaps, but they would seem to be two interrelated causes.
The question that the thoughtful reader then poses is: what does the Dalai Lama mean by the "intensity of karmic action" or the "forcefulness of karmic action?" He doesn't say here. I don't know: I can't read his mind, only his words. I don't have access to the source material he references.
I could speculate that murder is a forceful and intense karmic action, and being frustrated in traffic is a weak karmic action. If this is what the Dalai Lama means, then how many actions that I have committed in my life are "forceful" or "intense" in any universal comparative sense? Almost none: perhaps none.
But, let's take the example of a well-known murder. Assuming OJ Simpson commited murder, he appeared to escape the grasp of the justice system (obviously he suffered other karmic losses, like losing much of his fortune and his reputation). But, you might say that karma got him in the end, by putting him in jail for another crime: but it took over ten years. Maybe the intensity was offset by other conditions.
Or, perhaps the Dalai Lama means something entirely different by intensity. Maybe imagining a car is an intense karmic act in the Dali Lama's view.
And this leads me to my point, once again: do you give a fig about what the Dalai Lama means in this discussion? Or are you just trying to play more games - to find something that APPARENTLY does not support the point I was trying to make, because the Dalai Lama answered a question, without considering explicitly the question of frequency? And, while you're at it, explain to me how taking a quote, which on its face doesn't contradict me, to misdirect the discussion and try to falsely protray me as ignorant, is "grace" in your mind?
Can you even defend the idea that a punch is the nose is typically karmically fulfilled by a counter-punch? Isn't karma intention? So, if a punch in a consensual boxing match has almost no karmic effect, and the counter punch is meaningless, is it likely that an angry, unprovoked assualt will be karmically resolved by a counterpunch of the same intensity? Isn't it logical that the TRUE karmic effects of the underlying intention radiate much further than the simple physical retaliation, as I have described?
If the punch isn't instant karma, and OJ Simpson didn't get instant karma, the what is your real life example of instant karma? How is the Dalai Lama's description of karma even remotely supportive of the contention that thinking of a parking space (an act of little intensity) would immediately alter physical reality and give you a parking space?
No, you do not have grace. You do not have respect. You have no intellectual integrity. You have made no effort to understand the words of the Dalai Lama. Instead, you are - once again - pulling a quote out of one authority the "prove" me wrong. It is possible that I am wrong: maybe the Dalai Lama would say that karmic effects are usually are instant. But that passage says nothing of the sort.
So: again - I don't care if you and Steve Pavlina like believing you can fly like Peter Pan. And, I quite accurately stated that PEOPLE LAUGH AT YOU for saying it. Maybe people are wrong about your theory, and you have the keys to life. But don't drag the Dalai Lama in as support for the notion that you can fly or manifest physical objects if the Dalai Lama has never said you can fly or manifest physical objects. And, if you're going to spend your time in books trying to score a cheap point on me, at least understand that I will READ and TRY to UNDERSTAND the passage, and you will have to do a little better than your normal shallow, flitting from quote to quote to make a point not by logic, but by constant misdirection.