Email
Print
SyndicateKarma and Compound Interest, Part I
By Robert Ringer - Wednesday, December 24, 2008
When asked what he believed to be the greatest discovery of the 20th century, Albert Einstein is said to have answered, “Compound interest.” And wealthy people — you know, the ones who clip debt-instrument coupons as a pastime — would undoubtedly agree with him.
Compound interest, however, can accrue on things other than money. When I was a very young man, I observed that I almost always ended up paying considerably more for a “wrong” action than what I had hoped to gain from it. When the payment came due, it was like an invisible balloon note that carried onerous, compounded interest. (Sound familiar?)
I thought about this when Reader Maria Anastasia recently sent me an e-mail that read, in part:
“In a future edition of the book [Action!], you may want to insert something regarding the fact that many cultures (and some open-minded people) believe in karma and reincarnation. I am not sure if it exists or not, but it sure seems to explain the differences and seeming injustices in this world. Or, simply put, reaping what you sow — both in this lifetime and potentially in future lifetimes. … An excellent example is Jack Tatum — the football player who maimed so many other players.”
Ms. Anastasia went on to say that she wonders if former Oakland Raiders defensive back Jack Tatum, now severely diabetic (and having lost his left leg and five toes on his right foot as a result), is reaping what he sowed. In his playing days, Tatum’s nickname was “The Assassin,” and he let it be known that when he took the field, his goal was to maim his opponents.
On August 12, 1978, in a preseason game, he took that goal to its extreme with a brutal hit on Darryl Stingley of the New England Patriots. Stingley had been vulnerable while reaching for a high pass over the middle from quarterback Steve Grogan.
At the moment of impact, Stingley’s life was forever changed. He spent his remaining years as a quadriplegic. (He recently passed away at age fifty-five.)
Hard as it is to believe, Jack Tatum never once tried to contact Stingley to apologize — or even to see how he was doing. When asked by a reporter about the incident, he simply said, “I was just trying to do my job. It’s unfortunate, but it happens.”
Do Tatum’s horrific health problems comprise compounded interest that has come due on his karma debt?
And what about the now-disgraced Mike Nifong, the rogue prosecutor who tried to railroad three Duke lacrosse players into life sentences for a crime they didn’t commit? Nifong has lost everything — his prestigious district attorney title (that he was willing to commit criminal acts to retain), his license to practice law, the respect of friends, family, and the public, and, most assuredly, respect for himself.
Do Nifong’s enormous losses comprise compounded interest that has come due on his karma debt?
As a final example, I can’t help thinking of the late Johnny Cochran, who died of a brain tumor in 2005. Every non-comatose adult can vividly remember Cochran’s transformation of the O.J. Simpson trial into the Mark Fuhrman trial. And his ludicrous attempt at Muhammed Ali-like poetry that cinched the deal for his murderous client: “If it [the glove] doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”
For years, Cochran, with a straight face, insisted in his frequent television appearances that O.J. was innocent. This, even after the infamous Bruno Magli shoe pictures were published. It was, of course, a bold-faced lie. Cochran had a razor-sharp mind and was certainly no Pollyanna. He knew that O.J. was guilty as sin.
Was Cochran’s gruesome death compounded interest that came due on his karma debt?
I could make a pretty long list here — as I’m sure you could — but you get the idea: “Everything that goes around comes around.” It’s a nice, tight philosophical view of life that is very comforting — that is, until we come up against two scenarios that don’t fit the karma mold, scenarios I’ll be discussing in Part II of this article.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (150 words or less). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.
5 Responses to “Karma and Compound Interest, Part I”
Leave a Reply
1500 characters maximum.
Reply to Robert Ringer
Why do you continually pick on Johnny Cochran when he was doing the job he was paid to do? If we take your attitude to its logical conclusion, we have to assume that defense lawyers should not perform to the best of their ability. I’m sure their clients would appreciate that.
Maybe O. J. Simpson should have hired an incompetent attorney. I’m sure if the “beloved” state prosecuted you for a crime that almost everyone thought you were guilty of – you would hire the best attorney available. Or would you? I guess you no longer believe that everyone acts in what they believe to be their own best interest. To think that O. J. should hire an incompetent attorney and that the attorney he hires shouldn’t attempt to the best of his ability to get a verdict of acquittal is ludicrous.
If you believe in karma then you have to conclude that it is possible that Johnny Cochran’s “karmic” debt could have been more severe had he defended O.J. in an incompetent manner.
Jack Tatum was no doubt a sadistic individual—maybe still is. However, there is no proof that he is receiving what amounts to “instant karma.” Could his lifestyle be responsible for his current health woes? Maybe he was as hard on himself as he was on his opponents on the football field.
It is possible that Maria Anastasia’s theory of karma is correct. It certainly would explain the apparent injustices that are so evident to all. However, it may not explain Jack Tatum’s current health woes. Believers in reincarnation can make a case that Both Jack Tatum and Johnny Cochran were dealing with karmic issues from a past life experience.
By the way, if Johnny Cochran were around to defend himself – you would probably end up on the losing end of this dispute.
Hi Robert,
I enjoyed your article as always. Here’s my input on it.
The title of the article should have been “Karma and Responsibility”. It would have placed this topic in a much better perspective.
Karma to me is what happens to you when you don’t take responsibility for something that you should have done or not doing something when you were aware of it that resulted in some type of destruction, big or small, to oneself or to others or both.
In our world we sometimes see or hear of bad things happening to “good” people and good things happened to “bad” people. Here’s my explanation for what its worth.
When bad things happen to “good” people, it happens because there may have been an earlier time when they weren’t “good” people. Whatever they sow at that earlier time it catches up with them. You reap what you sow is a LAW. Not a catchy phrase. It occurs to all. The same principle applies to “good” things happening to bad people. Karma is an ancient word. It’s a word that applies to existence. It is not a “one lifetime” concept. If one has the understanding that one was created in the image of God, one can safely assume that one is of the “Spirit” not a body. The confusion in this area stems from an incomplete answer to this question, “what is Man”? He has parts to him but what is he? As long as we don’t have a clear and true answer to that question, a clear understanding of Man will always be vague and the confusion compounds. For me, Man is a Spirit. He doesn’t “have” a soul. He IS the Soul. If one can get their wits around that concept, it will give one a better perspective of Man, a perspective that one can think with. So, Karma applies to the Soul, a long term view and that’s you and me.
The solution lies in the word and the action of “responsibility”. How can one take responsibility for one’s actions or inactions? That’s the question one should always asks when confronted with a situation. The answer to that question according to each’s view of a situation, a problem, an event, determines whether or not the law of Karma is activated or not. If one responses rightfully, you get back right “karma” and wrongly, one gets bad karma. Responsibility is the way out and the courage to do what’s right no matter the cost. It’s not easy but we are capable of living up to an ideal if and only if we take responsibility for it. That’s the road to a fulfilled life.
That’s my take. Thank you for the opportunity to express it. I hope it’s of some use.
Best,
Freedomviaorder
Response to freedomviaorder:
A lot to think about, and very well said.
Jack Tatem is a product of a bad institution. Unfortunately, in Jack’s day one of the goals of the defensive secondary was to “punishing receivers that crossed the mid-field.” It still is the goal today. Fortunately, unnecessary roughness is called more today and “spearing” has been made illegal. I will leave you with the words of Darryl’s coach after the hit to illustrate why Tatem felt he had no reason to apologize: “There was nothing illegal or flagrant to be critical of in any way,” Fairbanks told the Globe two days after the game. “I resent that line of questioning. I resent anybody trying to read anything dirty into this. I don’t feel there is any cause for action.” Mr. Ringer, the game that you and I like to watch has a vicious intent that seemed to be at its worst during the seventies and early eighties. What goes around comes around? Maybe. It may be more attributable to how he responded off-the-field more than on-the-field.
greatings…
exellent…