Michael: Karma is an unbalance created through the actions of one overriding the choices of others. It is not always an eye-for-an-eye that is needed to cause the balance to return; many times, is the cause more subtle, so that the act of contrition need not be precisely the same, but rather something very similar.
In a recent reading, we told you that the shooting was accidental, and it was. That was not what incurred the debt. Rather was it the choices made following the shooting that created the imbalance. For the choice to abandon the man shot was willful, while the shooting was not.
Karma, then, is based on intentions. For if your intentions are harmful, and your choices follow your intentions, then do you create imbalances. This is how those intentions of the mind can incur karma, for if you intend another to take the risks, thereby sparing yourself, all the while knowing that the risks are higher then you told them, then have you created an imbalance. That they might be caught in whatever intrigue they were participating and incarcerated or killed is important, yes, but it is not the most important fact that must be redressed. The balance is restored when you are then faced with carrying out some intrigue without being aware of its full potential for risk. So do you see, that the results of the action are based on the choices made by the person performing the action. So it is the action itself that must be repeated. While person A may have been caught and killed for their part in the intrigue, you, having grown in awareness and cycle age, may only face incarceration or loss of job or property. It is the fact, that you also were “tricked” into doing something believing that you were safe, when others knew you were not, that redressed the karma. For that is what created it.
In the case of our example wherein one was shot and left behind, the intention was not to shoot him—that was an accident—however, the choice was made to abandon him and therefore, was there. That thought was given as to the other’s survival is not true, for the fleeing person thought only of abandoning the scene—not specifically the person shot. However, in following through on their thoughts, did they cause the other’s death. Typically, this would require that the one owing also be abandoned to suffer a similar fate. But since they do already suffer from the guilt carried from that life into this, has the planned lesson been altered so that only the abandonment during a time of emotional and physical shock is required. It need not lead to death, that will depend on the choices of the one abandoned.
So, karma, although compelling, is not always so black and white. There can be many facets to an experience, and all extenuating circumstances must be considered by the players before the imbalance is redressed. For it may be that the players have both grown enough that a simple acknowledgement by both of them of the incident and its consequences due to the actions taken is enough and the debt now balanced. That this is rare is not true, for many have been able to redress their imbalances in this way. However, this usually occurs only between those of an awareness level equal to early 5th cycle and upward. That is not to say that other levels cannot and have not been able to re-establish balance in this manner—we did not say that and we did not mean that. Only did we say that is easier for those of a particular awareness level.
So do you see, that redressing the imbalances of karma are not as black and white as some would make it out to be, but more is it a subtle process always worked around those nuances of choice which created the imbalances.