Re: "Karma" means "Action" so "Bad Karma" = "Bad Action" & "Bad Action" have conseque
like a broken bloody record *skip* *skip*
perhaps for the purposes of this thread, we can temporarily substitute "action" with "event"
*discretisation* is an event. therefore, choosing is an action. to choose not to act is a discretisation. it is an action, although it implies an inaction. there is still a processing, or a parsing *action*
it takes a rigorous application of the *fundamental meaning of terms and not the vernacular sense* to participate in a technical discussion
eg.
in computer programming, any "statement" ie.
let a = a + b
which can also be written in many other ways eg.
a = a + b;
or my favourite,
a += b;
is an *argument*
this does not mean the terms are shouting at each other, or disagree,
the most fundamental meaning of "argument" is applied in the sense of programmatic procedure.
and in the same way, in philosophy, in the matter of english speakers discussing karma, an "action" describes anything chartable, anything which may be discretised, even if it is beyond our scope of observation.
"energy" may be more comfortable for your interpretation, but entire generations of indians who also speak english have translated "karma" as "action".
in the same way that an entire generation of programmers have termed computer statements "arguments".
-----
in the west, we are encouraged to believe in a materialist doctrine, where our thoughts are perhaps physioloogical, neurochemical or otherwise, events. "actions" but actions of cells, not of entire persons. "energies" certainly. programmers would even feel comfortable calling them "arguments" of physical forces/substantiation.
in jain culture, for example, as in various western considerations, thoughts are considered to have an objective existence, ...ie. teilhard de chardin's "noosphere".
jains believe that what you think *does* affect the world, not just through your resulting "physical actions" but that there is an objective, wholistic, integrated effect. people who have spent a lifetime being encouraged not to appreciate such things certainy aren't going to begin to because they read a paragraph in a book or on the internet.
but certainly, *if* one were accustomed to appreciating that what one thinks does immediately have presence in the "objective" world, then it would be more appreciable to consider thoughts as actions.
until this, i suggest using the term "event" to bring harmony between this cyclic posting between the two of you
...because if we cannot get past that, how are we supposed to inculcate deeper appreciations eg. the relativity of "good" and "bad" ??? *shrug* let's move beyond the dichotomies, quickly..!
