Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Equivalent Trade
I was watching this anime, FullMetal Alchemist (Anyone heard of it? It's soo cool 
) and was quite attracted by the idea of equivalent trade. In the anime, one was supposed to give some thing of an equal value if he wants something. In other words, nothing was free. the storyline follows the life of two brothers, Edward and Al, who happened to be conversed in Alchemy. Fast foward to the main story, their mother died one day and out of anguish, they decided to ressurect their mother (Disclaimer: This is purely fiction). Generally, they failed as they didn't fufil the requirements of alchemy, that was equivalent trade. On the other hand, they did create a life, a monster that supposedly has a body but no soul.
But that is the context of the show. My point is, can the basis of equivalent trade be placed in the context of this world? For example, my friend(Lets call me Muffy) and I was wondering, when someone stole the money for the chalet (Refer to "The Divine Comedy thread") we were wondering whether the theif actually lost something of equvalent value so as to obtain this gain?
- No offense is intended and I hope none is taken
) and was quite attracted by the idea of equivalent trade. In the anime, one was supposed to give some thing of an equal value if he wants something. In other words, nothing was free. the storyline follows the life of two brothers, Edward and Al, who happened to be conversed in Alchemy. Fast foward to the main story, their mother died one day and out of anguish, they decided to ressurect their mother (Disclaimer: This is purely fiction). Generally, they failed as they didn't fufil the requirements of alchemy, that was equivalent trade. On the other hand, they did create a life, a monster that supposedly has a body but no soul.But that is the context of the show. My point is, can the basis of equivalent trade be placed in the context of this world? For example, my friend(Lets call me Muffy) and I was wondering, when someone stole the money for the chalet (Refer to "The Divine Comedy thread") we were wondering whether the theif actually lost something of equvalent value so as to obtain this gain?
- No offense is intended and I hope none is taken
0
Comments
Palzang
Let me see... What could the thief possibly have lost, or is it just a desire for revenge on our side? Let me think... Is it not true that the thief has showed us a thing or two about class spirit? If, following the Law of Equivalent Trade, should it not be us who should have lost the money in the first place, for the thief to teach us something and not vice versa?
Lol, i meant (Lets call HIM Muffy)
Pardon my ignorance but I thought karma was more like you do something and it will result in something? As in cause-and-effect?
Yeah, that's the "trade". You do something, you get something equal in return. You do something meritorious and virtuous, you experience happiness in return. You do something harmful or for your self, you experience suffering.
Palzang
Whilst unable to comment on the accuracy of this description of karma, it appears extremely mechanistic. The very fact of the Buddha and all the buddhas of all the worlds suggests to me that this is not a straight "if A, then B" like a light switch.
Within a context of faith in a near-infinite number of rebirths, an action or inaction , chosen under the challenge of the Dharma, may also be 'neutral' in karmic terms, may it not? And, the number of rebirths being uncountable, every suffering can be put down to 'karmic debt', every blessing to 'karmic virtue', resulting in inaction and stasis, whereas, the Dharma calls us to action.
The notion of 'karmic debt' is, of course, not solely Buddhist or Vedantist: it exists within Judaism also, where at least one rabbi has attributed the slaughter of the Nazi camps to the sins of the victims in previous lives.
Whatever the truth and whether we shall ever, as individuals, grasp the full extent of it, I believe that we are most ethical and founded in morality when we do not look on actions as mercantile transactions but come from a desire and intention to benefit other beings, irrespective of the cost to ourselves, in this or any other, putative, life.
This also begs further questions. Such great humanitarians as Savonarola, thinking to benefit humanity, can bring about dreadful catastrophes. In, for example, our present Middle Eastern dilemma, ascribing dubious motives to our leaders may be easier than accepting that they genuinely believed that they were acting in a way which is karmically good. Or, perhaps, we should take the view that the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died in the conflict, as against a few hundred Euro-Americans, demonstrates 'better' karma on one side?
Karma and its workings are extremely mysterious, as is the whole matrix of dependent co-arising. I read simplifications of it almost every day, just as I read of simplistic attitudes to the deep mystery of the unsatisfactoriness of life in general. This is why we, as humans, create myths like that of the Garden or other etiological stories. We find one such in the Aggana-Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, where the Shakyamuni Buddha tells a tale of the end of the world and its arising again.
I would add that the Buddhist approach does not seem to me to concern itself very much with "why the leopard got its spots" but more with what we do with the life we have.
And yes, there are no victims in Buddhism.
Palzang
in fma.. its a story line.. although i found it fascinating.. the story of loosing ur brother's body and encapsulating his soul in armour in trying to bring back the dead..
very heart warming story at first.. but considering they continually try to disproove the rule.. and realise that in order to harness such power u need to make a philosophers stone out of rare materials and living humans.. well that kinda sheds some light on it..
i think its about power corrupting, the reprecussions of power.. what happens to them is brought about by their own foolishness.. so in that essence it is an act of karma when they loose parts of themselves.. alfonse being his entire body.
if u thieve.. u loose some of ur control, sense and gain a little false confidence in pursuits that bring suffering, in old japanese terms i'd think it would be becoming more of a demon with each coming pass... u may cause ur parents to suffer or w/e..
Palzang
Palzang
Case 1
A thief wants to steal something. Thus he decides to give up his ability to speak (Don't ask me why or how..lol) so that he cannot enter the house without being caught. Thus he succeed. This is the idea behind FMA.
Case 2
Another thief wants to steal something elsewhere and assuming they are totally unrelated (both thieves not the items), the thief enters a house and in the end gets caught.
Without looking at the degree of success in both cases, case 1 is where he gives up something(or sacrifice) something to get something while case 2 is where he tries to do something bad and he gets his just deserts.To me, this is how I see both cases.
LOL... Hyped-Up Evolution?
Karma!
Well it all may not be that different... After all, evolution itself seems to be some form of co-dependent origination, a cousin of karma so as to speak... :rockon: