a wrongdoing certainly always comes back to me, as do the positive actions.

when something nice done to/for you, always be thankful of karma.

appreciation.

In actuality, it’s only one point that’s of real interest to me: Ivy’s statement of deciphering her morality.
It seems to me that Karma can be quite subjective in it’s ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’. Karma is omni-present, but the action is determined by morality (which is, in the end, a function of ego I suppose, but never mind that).

Thus, wouldn’t it make sense that Karma is good if you believe it to be? If we take the example of Robin Hood again, no doubt he believed his deeds were good, and thus he receives personal gratification/joy/what have you from robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. And in the end, he receives ‘good’ Karma from himself, because he believes he has done good, irrespective of what has subjectively transpired.

As Wade said, he would be living his Karma. Good or bad only comes into it when you think about it in terms of morality. And so, to come back to my original point, the morality of Ivy’s decisions are arbitrary. Karma just ‘is’. Good or bad is up to you. This is not to say you should change your train of thought to believe that anything bad you do, you should consider good, but when you next ponder upon your (or others’) behaviour, simply let the Karma flow, and act accordingly.

Proof of my karma? I’m living it. Every action I take/do is my karma. Karma means action, nothing more or less.

On Robin Hood. It depends on his motivation. If it was to steal from the rich, that’s negative karma. If it was to give to the poor as the rich were not looking after the poor correctly, that’d be seen as positive karma. It’s an internal thing for each person; self-analysis is required to work out if it’s good or bad.

Onto companies. Once again, it depends on the motivation for their actions. Donating for attention is not good karma, that’s an exercise of ego = bad. If they donate simply to counter their fraudulent activities, that’s also bad karma.

I’ll e-mail you from here now…

Cheers,
Wade

Do you have proof?
Let’s strip away the context or historical periods in which this tale has been told and think of it most simply. What do most people think of first when they hear the story or watch the movie adaptation? Robin Hood I named because he “stole” (technically a bad thing in terms of karma to “give” to the poor. Does that mean he’s left at zero? A lot of people seem to cancel what bad things they do with good things. Or they do bad things with good motivation- (what kind of karma does that give you!) It just seems so terribly convoluted especially in these times. A corporation might suck from the environment and conceal certain numbers or lie about figures, yet donate to a given organization. Maybe they donate to draw attention to themselves. Still, they donate, even if it is to gain more attention in the public eye as do-gooders.
Those are just a few of my considerations or reservations, or why I myself have a hard time deciphering the morality of some of my own (and others) behavior.

I do know that I am unable to do or achive anything without the result being the action, not the cause.

It’s a feedback loop really to me. Think/do bad now, and you’ll be setting bad up later. Think/do good now, and you’ll be setting up good up later in greater strength.

RE: “Robin Hood stories have been different in every period of their history. Robin himself is continually reshaped and redrawn, made to fit whatever values are pushed on him. This fact makes any notion of a “real” or “true” Robin Hood largely redundant. Even if a historical Robin Hood could be identified, he could account for only the bare minimum of the rich legend surrounding his name. The figure is less a personage and more of an amalgam of the various ideas his “life” has been made to support.” (wikipedia) I’m not sure what you were trying to say with that…

~W