>>124273
Why do you talk about karma with such property, like you are an expert in Karma? As far as I know, karma is only a theory, not a proven thing. There is no evidence that bad actions create consequences. It's all wishful thinking, the hope we have that people who do bad things will get punished and people who do good things will get rewarded.
>I'm a neophyte but I am pretty sure that's not how karma works
paraphrasing: you don't know but you guess. And you want me to accept that your guess is actually the truth?
>you take the hit because it could have gone wrong.
It *could*? So again, you're presuming. You are guessing. So why do you even bother existing? If we use your argument then there is no reason to do anything at all —even existing— because anything "could go wrong". You use "karma" only when it pleases you. That's not objective reasoning, that's just being biased.
>the safest option is to keep my money to myself.
The fact that you even think there is a "safest" option shows that I'm not clearly explaining the difference between action and non-action. I start from admitting that we are ignorant and that given that the universe "is" , therefore it would seem clearly that there is a reason to prefer "action". You start from the idea that you somehow know the consequences of "action" and therefore you choose to do non-action.
Am I making any sense? Maybe it's just a question of both of us having different definitions of what is Karma, action or non-action. Let me try with an example to also make things clear to myself. You have 100 text-books. You are a teacher. You can either only show 10 books to the children, those that you (notice: YOU) consider to be "safe" or you can just let them read all the books and make their own decisions. In the first case, it is you who are choosing what is good and what is bad for them. In the second case, you renounce this responsibility by letting the children use their free will to read anything they want and do with the knowledge whatever they see fit. Isn't the second option better in terms of reducing possible "karmic" consequences? Aren't you more responsible (in general) by action than by non-action?
Case 1: You have narrowed the options for the children and, if we want to talk in terms of karma, you are being more responsible for this action because you are exerting your free will but limiting the options available to other people (I decide what is good for you and bear the burden of making a wrong decision)
Case 2: You have chosen to let the children exert their free will, and your part in the whole thing is more of a non-action thing (I don't tell you what to do, I let you choose what mistakes you make)
The first paragraph of your response is written like there are clear karmic rules but as far as I know it's all speculation, so you need to either cite sources or admit that the whole karma thing is just used to make people believe that it's better to do good things than bad things:
>An executioner gets less of a karma hit than a murderer
Says who?
>the fact is that the outcome may not even matter karmically speaking
the fact is? Where are we getting these "facts" from?