TaN: There is no good karma; there is no bad karma; there is only karma. Like everything else in this universe or reality, only man can be good or bad, only man can be right or wrong. This is because only man has the so-called free will. Only those that have free will can be right or wrong and good or bad. It is precisely because of free will that something can be good of bad, otherwise it would merely be “obeying” whatever is its nature.
It is free will that enables us to “defy” whatever laws or directives that govern all of reality. A predator, though it kills, is neither good or bad because it is merely following what its nature dictates. Killing prey is neither good or bad because it is natural. The goodness and evilness, in this instance, would depend entirely on the perspective. From the viewpoint of the predator, it is good because the prey is its means of survival. From the prey’s viewpoint, it is bad because it is being deprived of its life. But both are merely observing the dictates of natural law – for it is necessary to take the life of another in order to sustain one’s own – for only life can sustain life.
From man’s viewpoint, karma differs from a mere act in the sense that it has the aspect of being a product of a free act (i.e., an act resulting from the exercise of free will). Because of this feature, karma possesses the quality of being good or bad and right or wrong. This is exactly identical to what I blogged earlier regarding the fact that only man can be right or wrong and good or bad – there is no such thing as good or bad cholesterol or good or bad anything.
This is also the very reason why “good” karma returns “good things” and “bad” karma returns “bad things”. Karma is just observing the principle of “what goes around comes around” or we “reap what was sown”. In other words, karma only returns what was set forth. Karma is karma. It is, in or by itself, neither good or bad but is a result of a free act – i.e., an act not borne out of coercion, collusion, deception, or any other reason or means aside from full consent.
TaN: There is a Great Universal Consciousness where all knowledge is ultimately kept or collected. If I understand Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance – i.e., there is a universal consciousness that all living things are connected to and can tap into – things get easier to understand and do as time passes.
My take on this is that the so-called Great Universal Consciousness (GUC) has (at least) 4 tiers or levels of “access”. Access is restricted or categorized according to the relevance of the one accessing and that of the knowledge being accessed.
The first level is the totality of all knowledge. This first and highest or largest level is either systematically divided into or linked to the second level. The second level contains the pooled knowledge of all of creation but categorized according to their fundamental differences – things with life and those without. This means that knowledge for non-living things are inaccessible to living things – knowledge like how matter for granite comes together and behave as granite and will not be confused or “diverted” to marble.
The third level contains the sub-categorizations for the fundamental differences – in the case of thing with life: between animals, plants, and other forms. This is so that knowledge intended for animals will not be mingled with those for plants and other life forms.
The fourth (and last) level, which connects to the third level, are categorized into the different sub-type (species): from the major orders and to the genera. This is where Sheldrake explains and posits that there is a common consciousness (knowledge) pool where gained knowledge is deposited and shared with others of the same “species” as well as where the flow can be reversed whenever and wherever it is needed by the “species” – like his example of a giraffe zygote/embryo/fetus drawing from the consciousness pool the needed knowledge to direct each cell to their specific locations in the body and the assignment of its duties and functions and determines its behavior even though the cell is “no different” from that of a cell in another animal (zygote/embryo/fetus) such as a dolphin.
This will also support the argument that “progress and development” appears to proceed at exponential rates because there are greater and greater organizing individuals that come into existence to contribute to the GUC and share whatever knowledge that was “gathered” – like some sort of an uncontrolled chain reaction, as in a nuclear fission reaction.