The common perception of Karma as it is espoused today seems to be a misnomer. That common perception being - what goes around comes around. This definition implies that Karma is something external. Like it is some entity floating around in the ether like the angel of death during Passover.
I see Karma as more complex and profound than that, happening at a minute internal level.
I see Karma as an anti-magnet inside of each person. Where a magnet attracts things of the opposite polarity, Karma, or the anti-magnet, attracts things of a similar polarity. So, if you have a negative attitude, or your Karma is in a negative state, you feel that bad things are happening to you and so the opposite would also apply. If you feel you are in a positive state, your Karma is positive and you will feel like positive things will happen in your life.
This is why it is not always the case that people that do you wrong will have bad things happen to them. If they wrong another person, but feel their actions were correct, and they feel positive about what they have done, then it is possible that they won't see any negative effects to their actions.
People site Karma as justification for not taking action. It is really a rationalization to make themselves feel better about something that happened to them - perhaps because their Karma was negative. This is not representing Karma correctly.
Karma is a paradox. It is internal to each person, but is in everyone. If your Karma is negative, how do you make it positive? Each person has to answer that for themselves, but at the end of the day there really isn't a way to do it other than to forget self and decide now that from this point forward you will have a positive outlook on things.
There is nothing to it but to do it - for 21 days straight until the new habit of positive attitude and outlook has been created within you. It takes 21 days to create a new habit.
You may think Karma is upset about being misrepresented, but Karma isn't too worried about it and remains in a positive state and will be attracting positive things to itself going forward.
Is any of this true or accurate? Probably not, but I feel good about it.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Book Review: The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
Holden Caufield likes to use short sentences. It is like reading the Dick and Jane books. But with more adult content. I am not kidding. Holden Caufield likes to say he's not kidding a lot too.
Starting out, Caulfield seems quite normal. Six chapters in, you start to wonder. He seems flawed. And so does everyone one else around him. Are they flawed? Or, do they just seem that way through Holden's eyes?
Holden seems like a bit of a loner. He seems to not have any drive. He has no care about the consequences of his actions. He is an adolescent's adolescent.
Salinger captures the thought process and rythyms of an adolescent quite well. He makes the shallowness of Holden's thoughts entertaining if not repetitive.
As I have read other reviews and commentaries on the book, it is apparent that there are many subtle poltitical references in the pages from the times when it was written. McCarthyism and Communism are both posited because of the red hunting hat. The references are very subtle which lends the novel a certain brilliance. You don't pick up on them as you read the story, but they make sense after you read it and discuss it..
I had an expectation that something terrible was going to happen to Holden, and perhaps he senses it himself. The end of innocence is near.
Does he see adolesence as a good thing or a bad thing? I think he sees it as both, but he doesn't see that adulthood will be much different or better. Too many phonies. Too many people not understanding him or his thoughts.
The book is an interesting dichotomy because it doesn't have much to say, and at the same time it has a great deal to say. It just doesn't come right out and say it.
It kills me when English teachers assign this kind of stuff. It really does. To a student reading it, it really seems to be a total waste of time because it isn't saying anything right to your face. But the discussions that the class could have about the subtext could be quite interesting. That kills me. It really does. I'm serious.
I found several stories within the book quite funny. Like the boy stepping on the woman's toes and Caulfield saying he probably broke every toe in her body as if her skeleton were made of toes rather than bones. Or the graffiti he says will be on his grave stone. Or the tension breaker in the Hall during a serious speech given by a benefactor to Pencey.
Will you feel good after having read The Catcher in the Rye? You can be the judge of that, but I don't think you will feel it was a waste of your time.
By the way, I really hate it when someone says you can be the judge of that. I really do. It depresses me.
It doesn't really depress me. If you read the book, you'll get it.
Starting out, Caulfield seems quite normal. Six chapters in, you start to wonder. He seems flawed. And so does everyone one else around him. Are they flawed? Or, do they just seem that way through Holden's eyes?
Holden seems like a bit of a loner. He seems to not have any drive. He has no care about the consequences of his actions. He is an adolescent's adolescent.
Salinger captures the thought process and rythyms of an adolescent quite well. He makes the shallowness of Holden's thoughts entertaining if not repetitive.
As I have read other reviews and commentaries on the book, it is apparent that there are many subtle poltitical references in the pages from the times when it was written. McCarthyism and Communism are both posited because of the red hunting hat. The references are very subtle which lends the novel a certain brilliance. You don't pick up on them as you read the story, but they make sense after you read it and discuss it..
I had an expectation that something terrible was going to happen to Holden, and perhaps he senses it himself. The end of innocence is near.
Does he see adolesence as a good thing or a bad thing? I think he sees it as both, but he doesn't see that adulthood will be much different or better. Too many phonies. Too many people not understanding him or his thoughts.
The book is an interesting dichotomy because it doesn't have much to say, and at the same time it has a great deal to say. It just doesn't come right out and say it.
It kills me when English teachers assign this kind of stuff. It really does. To a student reading it, it really seems to be a total waste of time because it isn't saying anything right to your face. But the discussions that the class could have about the subtext could be quite interesting. That kills me. It really does. I'm serious.
I found several stories within the book quite funny. Like the boy stepping on the woman's toes and Caulfield saying he probably broke every toe in her body as if her skeleton were made of toes rather than bones. Or the graffiti he says will be on his grave stone. Or the tension breaker in the Hall during a serious speech given by a benefactor to Pencey.
Will you feel good after having read The Catcher in the Rye? You can be the judge of that, but I don't think you will feel it was a waste of your time.
By the way, I really hate it when someone says you can be the judge of that. I really do. It depresses me.
It doesn't really depress me. If you read the book, you'll get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)