Hi Aupanyav —
My post was largely rhetorical, thanks for coming to karma's aid!
What gives you the idea that karma is blind to compassion?
I don't think it is, but the way it is presented in discussion seems fairly mechanistic. The Law of Cause and Effect, as a natural law, is amoral. It seems to me many assume karma to be amoral as well.
I do not think the karma philosophy in Indian religions is in any way deficient ...
Nor do I. As I said, when I see deficiency, I usually assume it's my understanding that's at fault, not the doctrine.
Karma sees giving of alms, it also sees the reason of the act.
So there is a moral/ethical dimension to karma? That implies more than simply a natural law, surely?
How does karma distinguish between the motive of the giver of alms in the analogy of Aquinas? If karma covers the
intention behind the act, then that presupposes mind, does it not?
What, for instance, is the karmic effect of non-action? By what process is the balance added or subtracted when someone chooses
not to act ...
Karma is a very simple philosophy.
But I'm sure it addresses quite sophisticated issues.
The example of killing you mention is itself simple. Our version is a man cuts off another man's hand. Why? He's a doctor, the man has gangrene – it's the hand, or his life. He's a pianist, and he's jealous ...
... but these examples are themselves quite simple. The giving of alms is more subtle, and requires insight into the motivation behind the act. At a mechanical level, both are equal — the poor gets alms in his bowl — it's only at the level of intention that there is distinction, and then it's a moral/ethical evaluation, and the analogy can become infinitely complex.
But at the heart of the matter is a moral/ethical evaluation of the reasons why man does what he does. Hinduism and Sikhism seems to have that covered, but I can't see how Buddhism does?
It is like a bank account, good deeds increase the balance, evil deeds reduce it.
S'funny. We have 'indulgences', pretty much the same thing, yet some people get really incensed at its mention.
... It is automatic in jainism and buddhism, it is overseen (and not interfered with) by Yama, the lord of Death in hinduism, and by the 'Akal Purukh' (one who is beyond time) in sikhism.
Then I would say that man can demonstrate more virtue than the gods ... which is something of a contradiction, is it not? Man can forgive his neighbour, whereas this system that judges man seems automated and non-negotiable ... a bit kafkaesque, d'you not think?