Does anyone have any views on Karma? I am not a student and have never studied philosophy but im just doing a project for martial arts and i am interested to hear others thoughts, just to be clear I'm looking at Karma as actions determining the future, comprising the cycle of cause and effect. The question being.can we control our own destiny?Can we say that good comes from bad and if so how can we train ourselves to automatically see the positive of a negative situation? As in Inversion Karma......is there a difference between human and non-human destiny, karmas we can control and karmas that we cannot....? Im baffled
Karma
- Thread starter whosaid
- Start date
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste whosaid,
thank you for the post and welcome to CR.
i suspect that you'd have more success by posting this query in the Eastern Thought section of the forum.
Karma, as understood in the Buddhist paradigm, is not ones actions, per se. it is, rather, the intention behind such actions which creates karma. our futures, so to speak, are shaped by our present and our present is shaped by our past. if you want to know how your life will be in the future, look to how it is now.
you can find a more thorough explanation of the Buddhist view of karma here:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm
metta,
~v
thank you for the post and welcome to CR.
i suspect that you'd have more success by posting this query in the Eastern Thought section of the forum.
Karma, as understood in the Buddhist paradigm, is not ones actions, per se. it is, rather, the intention behind such actions which creates karma. our futures, so to speak, are shaped by our present and our present is shaped by our past. if you want to know how your life will be in the future, look to how it is now.
you can find a more thorough explanation of the Buddhist view of karma here:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm
metta,
~v
Thankyou very much for the welcome and reply 
So is that to say we can not determine our destiny in this life? that our actions in this life are merely defining our next life? Im confused with different explanations of Karma,in that in our school or martial arts they look at Karma not in the Buddism definition but in way of cause and effect for our life now, which does make sense so far as it is obvious our actions today will affect what we may do tommorrow. Was just curious as to what other people may come up with. We have been given a kind of project to finish a story and each been given a certain aspect of Karma to define the trail of thought behind the story, .......... I will just briefly out line the scenario then you can see what you think................. So here goes, A guy is sat in a bar, he has had a few beers and has noticed a man sat in a booth with a beautiful blonde girl, the man sat with her, is a huge stocky guy who is being aggressive and rude to the girl........ a short while later he sees that the girl is walking towards him, the guy she was with is distracted at the slot machine.....just as she goes to speak the bar tender taps him on the shoulder froim behind................(and this is where you have to finsih the story) Now I have been asked to finsih the story with a certain trail of thought behind it, which is defined as inversion Karma,,,,,I have to write the rest of the story with the thought of " from bad comes good" so with every negative i have to internally turn it to a positive............. Any ideas LOL ? Forgive me if i havent made much sense xxx
So is that to say we can not determine our destiny in this life? that our actions in this life are merely defining our next life? Im confused with different explanations of Karma,in that in our school or martial arts they look at Karma not in the Buddism definition but in way of cause and effect for our life now, which does make sense so far as it is obvious our actions today will affect what we may do tommorrow. Was just curious as to what other people may come up with. We have been given a kind of project to finish a story and each been given a certain aspect of Karma to define the trail of thought behind the story, .......... I will just briefly out line the scenario then you can see what you think................. So here goes, A guy is sat in a bar, he has had a few beers and has noticed a man sat in a booth with a beautiful blonde girl, the man sat with her, is a huge stocky guy who is being aggressive and rude to the girl........ a short while later he sees that the girl is walking towards him, the guy she was with is distracted at the slot machine.....just as she goes to speak the bar tender taps him on the shoulder froim behind................(and this is where you have to finsih the story) Now I have been asked to finsih the story with a certain trail of thought behind it, which is defined as inversion Karma,,,,,I have to write the rest of the story with the thought of " from bad comes good" so with every negative i have to internally turn it to a positive............. Any ideas LOL ? Forgive me if i havent made much sense xxx
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste whosaid,
thank you for the post.
not really. your intentional actions today will shape the remainder of this current arising, provided that the correct causes and conditions arise. it can also influence the subsequent arisings.
not exclusively. it works on both levels, this current arising and future arisings.
the Suttas explain that there are three types of karma, to wit:
karma ripening during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedanīya kamma);
karma ripening in the next arising (upapajja-vedanīya-kamma);
karma ripening in later births (aparāpariya-vedanīya-kamma).
the Suttas go into considerably more detail on this subject as you may well imagine.
not surprising since there are two well defined, and somewhat different, ideas of Karma. namely, the Sanatana Dharma and Buddha Dharma. moreover, there are many aspects to karma, it is not a monolithic whole, so to speak.
in the Buddhist view, Karma is a manifold process i.e. there are several different aspects to karma and how it arises and what is operative upon.
which school do you practice? for a time, i had practiced the Northern Long Fist style of Chinese K'ung Fu.
i'm afraid that i cannot complete your story for you
i really have no idea what "inversion karma" may actually mean.
in the Buddhist understanding, any violitional action, thought or word generates karma. karma can be either positive or negative or neutral. it isn't karma, per se, that a being is expericing. it is the Vipaka or fruit of the karmic seed, which becomes manifest and that is what we experience.
metta,
~v
thank you for the post.
whosaid said:
not really. your intentional actions today will shape the remainder of this current arising, provided that the correct causes and conditions arise. it can also influence the subsequent arisings.
not exclusively. it works on both levels, this current arising and future arisings.
the Suttas explain that there are three types of karma, to wit:
karma ripening during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedanīya kamma);
karma ripening in the next arising (upapajja-vedanīya-kamma);
karma ripening in later births (aparāpariya-vedanīya-kamma).
the Suttas go into considerably more detail on this subject as you may well imagine.
not surprising since there are two well defined, and somewhat different, ideas of Karma. namely, the Sanatana Dharma and Buddha Dharma. moreover, there are many aspects to karma, it is not a monolithic whole, so to speak.
in the Buddhist view, Karma is a manifold process i.e. there are several different aspects to karma and how it arises and what is operative upon.
which school do you practice? for a time, i had practiced the Northern Long Fist style of Chinese K'ung Fu.
i'm afraid that i cannot complete your story for you
i really have no idea what "inversion karma" may actually mean.
in the Buddhist understanding, any violitional action, thought or word generates karma. karma can be either positive or negative or neutral. it isn't karma, per se, that a being is expericing. it is the Vipaka or fruit of the karmic seed, which becomes manifest and that is what we experience.
metta,
~v
christine.P
Bowlacy
The Law of Karma...
This law is closely associated with the "Law of Cause & Effect"... Yes, we must remember that "As we Sow, We must Reap"... But in understanding "Karma"... we can give us meaning to the retribution we have to make... and to the compensation we must receive.
Every action may have it's karmic reaction... we are free to choose our own actions... (that part is important)... If there are indeed "karmic debts owed" (if there is such a thing as past lives) this law tells us we are still free to choose how we will meet and pay those debts. The Freedom of Will prevails under the Law of Karma... Karma brings us either "good or bad" depending upon what we have created.
Peace...
Bow
This law is closely associated with the "Law of Cause & Effect"... Yes, we must remember that "As we Sow, We must Reap"... But in understanding "Karma"... we can give us meaning to the retribution we have to make... and to the compensation we must receive.
Every action may have it's karmic reaction... we are free to choose our own actions... (that part is important)... If there are indeed "karmic debts owed" (if there is such a thing as past lives) this law tells us we are still free to choose how we will meet and pay those debts. The Freedom of Will prevails under the Law of Karma... Karma brings us either "good or bad" depending upon what we have created.
Peace...
Bow
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste christine,
thank you for the post.
i am not undertsanding the idea of "retribution we have to make" and "compenstation we must receive" in relation to karma.
those ideas are somewhat inapplicable to karma, if i am understanding the terms correctly. more directly, however, is it not karma per se which we are reaping, it is the fruit of karma, Vipaka which is what we reap.
we do not reap the apple tree, we reap the apples, the fruit of the tree. the same sort of similie is operative with karma.
within the auspices of Buddha Dharma and Sanatana Dharma (though i'll have to exlude the Jain Dharma here) this is not so. it is only *intentional* actions, thoughts and words which produce karma. unintentional actions do not have the same components and thus do not produce karma.
i'm not convinced that this is so. beings are conditioned by their past experiences and subjective sense conciousnesses and respond as they must. it is possible to undo this conditioning through intensive effort, in my view.
i'm not sure what that means. "karmic debts owed". that would imply that there is some being that is keeping track of said debts (which is a strange term to use here), a celestial accountant of some sort, whom one must repay. this is an Adharmic view of karma, to be sure
interesting point of view. Free will is an illusion as far as i can tell.
karma isn't really couched in terms of "good or bad". those are bivalent terms which are incredibly subjective. generally speaking, Vipaka is either "positive or negative" or, perhaps, "beneficial and harmful" though that is certainly a subject of some discussion.
further, Karma does not "bring" anything. it is not a sentient being of any sort and, as such, does not have any intentional actions. i suppose that one could say that gravity brings us either "good or bad" but that seems like a very inapt description of gravity as it equally seems a very inapt description of Vipaka.
query: is your view of karma based on Theosophy?
metta,
~v
thank you for the post.
christine.P said:
i am not undertsanding the idea of "retribution we have to make" and "compenstation we must receive" in relation to karma.
those ideas are somewhat inapplicable to karma, if i am understanding the terms correctly. more directly, however, is it not karma per se which we are reaping, it is the fruit of karma, Vipaka which is what we reap.
we do not reap the apple tree, we reap the apples, the fruit of the tree. the same sort of similie is operative with karma.
within the auspices of Buddha Dharma and Sanatana Dharma (though i'll have to exlude the Jain Dharma here) this is not so. it is only *intentional* actions, thoughts and words which produce karma. unintentional actions do not have the same components and thus do not produce karma.
i'm not convinced that this is so. beings are conditioned by their past experiences and subjective sense conciousnesses and respond as they must. it is possible to undo this conditioning through intensive effort, in my view.
i'm not sure what that means. "karmic debts owed". that would imply that there is some being that is keeping track of said debts (which is a strange term to use here), a celestial accountant of some sort, whom one must repay. this is an Adharmic view of karma, to be sure
interesting point of view. Free will is an illusion as far as i can tell.
karma isn't really couched in terms of "good or bad". those are bivalent terms which are incredibly subjective. generally speaking, Vipaka is either "positive or negative" or, perhaps, "beneficial and harmful" though that is certainly a subject of some discussion.
further, Karma does not "bring" anything. it is not a sentient being of any sort and, as such, does not have any intentional actions. i suppose that one could say that gravity brings us either "good or bad" but that seems like a very inapt description of gravity as it equally seems a very inapt description of Vipaka.
query: is your view of karma based on Theosophy?
metta,
~v
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
I think it is a bit sad when someone misses the point because of terminology, or fails to recognize that quotes (" ") are being used precisely to indicate that this is an expression, a figure of speech, and not something intended literally.
But I am even more disappointed to see that such misunderstandings apparently still prevail when it comes to something so basic as karma. If, for example, we think that "only intentional actions result in karmic fruit" ... then I suppose it will make equal sense that if I toss an apple up in the air, it will only fall and hit me on the head if I intend it to! However, I can prevent this if I blurt out VEGETABLE only moments before the apple otherwise would have struck me ...
No, this is pure nonsense. Equally the notion that we have no control over how our past actions sown manifest in terms of today's harvest reaped. In my humble opinion, it would be better if the Jina had NOT taught the doctrine of Karma (Cause and Effect) at all ... if it was going to be this poorly understood. By all means, let us proceed to quibble over terminologies and trifles, let us be obdurate and insist that things are put into our own language and framework ... and if at all possible, let us strive with every ounce of closed-mindedness in our being - to demonstrate to others that we are right, more correct, or somehow have a superior understanding ... instead of meeting on the level.
I'm flat disgusted to see things picked apart like this. But, I've seen it before, I've been on the receiving end of it, and I have also dished it out. Still, I'm no less disgusted to see it happen again. That H.P. Blavatsky and various authors during early Theosophical days happened to bring clarity, insight, and straightforward information about the PATH - earlier indicated by the Great One, and thoroughly misunderstood - should be something we can acknowledge and be grateful for. That one calls oneself `Buddhist' (in ANY sense of that word), yet cannot recognize the CLEAR indication of the Great One's teachings anent Karma when they are offered on one's doorstep ... is a disgrace to what the Buddha said.
And since it appears that giving one the benefit of the doubt in this case means that he will run an entire marathon with it rather than surrender it on the doorstep of truth & reason (humility, friend, humility), let us proceed to quote HPB in the most STRAIGHTFORWARD definition of Karma that has perhaps ever been given to the West:
Namaskar, and Good Day!
-taijasi
But I am even more disappointed to see that such misunderstandings apparently still prevail when it comes to something so basic as karma. If, for example, we think that "only intentional actions result in karmic fruit" ... then I suppose it will make equal sense that if I toss an apple up in the air, it will only fall and hit me on the head if I intend it to! However, I can prevent this if I blurt out VEGETABLE only moments before the apple otherwise would have struck me ...
No, this is pure nonsense. Equally the notion that we have no control over how our past actions sown manifest in terms of today's harvest reaped. In my humble opinion, it would be better if the Jina had NOT taught the doctrine of Karma (Cause and Effect) at all ... if it was going to be this poorly understood. By all means, let us proceed to quibble over terminologies and trifles, let us be obdurate and insist that things are put into our own language and framework ... and if at all possible, let us strive with every ounce of closed-mindedness in our being - to demonstrate to others that we are right, more correct, or somehow have a superior understanding ... instead of meeting on the level.
I'm flat disgusted to see things picked apart like this. But, I've seen it before, I've been on the receiving end of it, and I have also dished it out. Still, I'm no less disgusted to see it happen again. That H.P. Blavatsky and various authors during early Theosophical days happened to bring clarity, insight, and straightforward information about the PATH - earlier indicated by the Great One, and thoroughly misunderstood - should be something we can acknowledge and be grateful for. That one calls oneself `Buddhist' (in ANY sense of that word), yet cannot recognize the CLEAR indication of the Great One's teachings anent Karma when they are offered on one's doorstep ... is a disgrace to what the Buddha said.
And since it appears that giving one the benefit of the doubt in this case means that he will run an entire marathon with it rather than surrender it on the doorstep of truth & reason (humility, friend, humility), let us proceed to quote HPB in the most STRAIGHTFORWARD definition of Karma that has perhaps ever been given to the West:
An Occultist or a philosopher will not speak of the goodness or cruelty of Providence; but, identifying it with Karma-Nemesis, he will teach that nevertheless it guards the good and watches over them in this, as in future lives; and that it punishes the evil-doer -- aye, even to his seventh rebirth. So long, in short, as the effect of his having thrown into perturbation even the smallest atom in the Infinite World of harmony, has not been finally readjusted. For the only decree of Karma -- an eternal and immutable decree -- is absolute Harmony in the world of matter as it is in the world of Spirit. It is not, therefore, Karma that rewards or punishes, but it is we, who reward or punish ourselves according to whether we work with, through and along with nature, abiding by the laws on which that Harmony depends, or -- break them. (The Secret Doctrine I:643)
And before you seek to correct me for providing a supposedly non-Buddhist definition of karma (which perturbs me not because of presumption, but because of the error involved), let me be quick about adding - IMHO, to everything I might have just said. If you wish to corner me, browbeat me, and insist on a qualification ... then you shall have it: Thus have I heard ...
Namaskar, and Good Day!
-taijasi
Ciel
in essence
Taijasi,
Your spirit lifts me. Yes, without wishing to appear right or wrong, yet seeing....... as it is where all matters of consciousness are concerned, by our very nature we live in our own sense of enablement and understanding according to experience and connection. There is great compassion in seeking to understand another without dismisal, this very thing alleviates the accrue of karma.
- c -
Your spirit lifts me. Yes, without wishing to appear right or wrong, yet seeing....... as it is where all matters of consciousness are concerned, by our very nature we live in our own sense of enablement and understanding according to experience and connection. There is great compassion in seeking to understand another without dismisal, this very thing alleviates the accrue of karma.
- c -
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste taijasi,
thank you for the post.
rather than presume to know anothers thoughts i find it more condusive to converstation to ask for clarification and to provide my own frame of reference so that the speaker (or writer in this case) has some idea of where the confusion may lie.
you are, of course, free to be as sad as you'd like.
if Kamma were as basic as you assert the Buddhas would not teach that the full workings of kamma are unknowable to un-Awakened beings. however, that is precisely what is taught in the Suttas on this topic.
you have misunderstood what intentional actions, thoughts and words mean in context of the Dharma.
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html#part-5
if you toss an apple in the air and it hits you on the head, that is gravity and a failure of your reflex saving throw (though it does have a -5 on your check).
so you say.
if that is what works for you.
therein lies the source of our disagreement. you give priority in the Buddhist teachings to beings that are not Buddhist. how one could hope to gain a proper cognition of the Dharma in this manner is quite baffling yet, it seems to be the case for a great many beings. in a strange sort of coincidence, it seems that beings that hold non-Buddhist views of Buddha Dharma are particuarly displeased when their view is not confirmed by the Suttas themselves. this, too, is baffling to me.
clearly this is your opinion. the teaching on kamma/karma have been directly transmitted to the western hemisphere from the actual Suttas themselves.
i suppose you will be upset if i explain why this isn't a correct cognition of karma from the Buddhist point of view. as such, i shall simply say that between the two of them, i will accept the Suttas as the definitive explanation for this. from the Buddhist point of view, of course. we have yet to hear from our Sanatana Dharma and Jain Dharma friends that also have the teaching of karma within their tradition.
as i mentioned, the Dharma traditions all have a teaching of karma and, as such, there is more than just the Buddhist understanding of this phenomena. if you would like to present a non-Buddhist understanding of karma, you are free to do so. i am speaking only from that frame of reference which, hopefully, i make clear.
metta,
~v
thank you for the post.
taijasi said:
rather than presume to know anothers thoughts i find it more condusive to converstation to ask for clarification and to provide my own frame of reference so that the speaker (or writer in this case) has some idea of where the confusion may lie.
you are, of course, free to be as sad as you'd like.
if Kamma were as basic as you assert the Buddhas would not teach that the full workings of kamma are unknowable to un-Awakened beings. however, that is precisely what is taught in the Suttas on this topic.
you have misunderstood what intentional actions, thoughts and words mean in context of the Dharma.
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html#part-5
if you toss an apple in the air and it hits you on the head, that is gravity and a failure of your reflex saving throw (though it does have a -5 on your check).
so you say.
if that is what works for you.
therein lies the source of our disagreement. you give priority in the Buddhist teachings to beings that are not Buddhist. how one could hope to gain a proper cognition of the Dharma in this manner is quite baffling yet, it seems to be the case for a great many beings. in a strange sort of coincidence, it seems that beings that hold non-Buddhist views of Buddha Dharma are particuarly displeased when their view is not confirmed by the Suttas themselves. this, too, is baffling to me.
clearly this is your opinion. the teaching on kamma/karma have been directly transmitted to the western hemisphere from the actual Suttas themselves.
i suppose you will be upset if i explain why this isn't a correct cognition of karma from the Buddhist point of view. as such, i shall simply say that between the two of them, i will accept the Suttas as the definitive explanation for this. from the Buddhist point of view, of course. we have yet to hear from our Sanatana Dharma and Jain Dharma friends that also have the teaching of karma within their tradition.
as i mentioned, the Dharma traditions all have a teaching of karma and, as such, there is more than just the Buddhist understanding of this phenomena. if you would like to present a non-Buddhist understanding of karma, you are free to do so. i am speaking only from that frame of reference which, hopefully, i make clear.
metta,
~v
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
IMHO, I would say that the Uncertainty Principle is intimately associated with karma.whosaid said:
Vajradhara
One of Many
seattlegal said:
Namaste seattlegal,
thank you for the post.
Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle???
the one that is dealing with sub-atomic particles that says the more accurately we measure some aspects of a particle, say it's velocity, the less we will know about its other aspects, like is position?
metta,
~v
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Yes, in an analogous sort of way, rather than in a literal way.Vajradhara said:
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
What I am ... is aware of my Paladin atm, so I guess it comes down to POV after all. "Cease to hold views." Somebody said that ...
Taijasi
Taijasi
flowperson
Oannes
seattlegal said:Yes, in an analogous sort of way, rather than in a literal way.
There is another aspect to quantum effects known as quantum complimentarity. I don't remember who did the theoretical work, maybe Neils Bohr, but it posits that instantaneous complimentary quantum effects are possible over unimaginably long distances in space and time. It is also known as the "local-non-local" phenomenon. Actions at one locality can sometimes trigger reactions in non-local domains. Carl Jung also touched upon these concepts with his studies regarding synchronicity.
In contemporary societies it is believed by some that many who claim that their televisions told them to commit certain acts (not usully good ones) is a possible explanation for aberrant behaviors rather than mental deficiencies or illnesses. After all electrons are the operative entities in both brains and electronic devices. This could also explain why people talking on cell phones sometimes cross a street in front of speeding vehicles.
Interestingly this may also be a prevalent feature of some of the stories regarding miracles performed by Jesus as related in the Synoptic Gospels. It is inferred that through His acts He could change the realities of a local situation with only a thought or a gesture.
Of course this whole line of reasoning affirms Arthur C. Clarke's assertion that sufficiently advanced form of science and technology would appear to be magic to the uneducated and uninformed observer.
flow....
I see Karma as this pendelum...good Karma, bad Karma...either way we gave the pendelum a shove in some direction...through our thoughts, through our actions...and sometimes we continue to shove it off in that direction so it gains energy...a pendelum that is on the orbit of an asteroid...it is gonna come back around...
But now we are also pushing this other virtual pendelum which does have its affect on the first one...sort of tosses some grace into the equation...sometimes when that pendelum comes back we just happenned to have ducked, been inclined to duck, been divinely guided to duck...that grace effect...and the pendelum missed us, or just clipped us, or we felt the breeze...but we didn't get the full affect, it didn't knock us on our ass, because we were out pushing that virtual pendelum doing some good as well.
But it will check back around on us, next time in the orbit, coming from a different direction from whence we first pushed...seemingly outta the blue...us not realizing how much we've added force over time...
Again I see it like a total, a scale, which way have you been pushing the pendelum...if you've been gleefully pushing the 'wrong' way...it'll eventually knock you on your keister wondering 'what the..', but if you've been pushing the other side and totalled up some positive energy the windfalls could be absolutely incredible....that is if we get a chance to gather and acknowledge before ego steps in and gathers credit...
Sorry there is no science or deep religioous thinking here....just my rambling analogies which fit my current paradigms.
But now we are also pushing this other virtual pendelum which does have its affect on the first one...sort of tosses some grace into the equation...sometimes when that pendelum comes back we just happenned to have ducked, been inclined to duck, been divinely guided to duck...that grace effect...and the pendelum missed us, or just clipped us, or we felt the breeze...but we didn't get the full affect, it didn't knock us on our ass, because we were out pushing that virtual pendelum doing some good as well.
But it will check back around on us, next time in the orbit, coming from a different direction from whence we first pushed...seemingly outta the blue...us not realizing how much we've added force over time...
Again I see it like a total, a scale, which way have you been pushing the pendelum...if you've been gleefully pushing the 'wrong' way...it'll eventually knock you on your keister wondering 'what the..', but if you've been pushing the other side and totalled up some positive energy the windfalls could be absolutely incredible....that is if we get a chance to gather and acknowledge before ego steps in and gathers credit...
Sorry there is no science or deep religioous thinking here....just my rambling analogies which fit my current paradigms.
flowperson
Oannes
Wil:
As I mentioned to the China cat recently, one should never apologise for original thinking. It's what really makes the world go round, and lord knows we are all woefully short on this commodity these days.
But then there is also Aletheia's view that too much thinking get's you into trouble more often than not. Having experienced a share of that myself I'd have to agree on one level of belief. But then if that's what you're here to do, and you believe that, then it's your personal and moral obligation to do as much of it as possible if that helps others in some way. That's the way I see things.
I've read that Einstein and other great thinkers like Jefferson and Lincoln had their share of personal troubles. I tell people that in America these days if you think too much you're automatically identified as a terrorist. I guess that's trouble.
flow....
As I mentioned to the China cat recently, one should never apologise for original thinking. It's what really makes the world go round, and lord knows we are all woefully short on this commodity these days.
But then there is also Aletheia's view that too much thinking get's you into trouble more often than not. Having experienced a share of that myself I'd have to agree on one level of belief. But then if that's what you're here to do, and you believe that, then it's your personal and moral obligation to do as much of it as possible if that helps others in some way. That's the way I see things.
I've read that Einstein and other great thinkers like Jefferson and Lincoln had their share of personal troubles. I tell people that in America these days if you think too much you're automatically identified as a terrorist. I guess that's trouble.
flow....