Karma vs Cause & Effect

Influence is not control. Pattern is not punishment. Consequence is not cosmic choreography.

Karma vs Cause & Effect

Classical karma in Buddhism and Hindu philosophy is not instantaneous punishment or reward. It is closer to: Action → Consequence → Pattern reinforcement.
It is psychological and behavioural, not cosmic vending machine logic.

If I habitually act with aggression, I cultivate a mind prone to aggression. That shapes my relationships. That shapes my outcomes. That is karma.

It is not: “He cut me off in traffic, therefore the universe sent a police car.”
That is narrative satisfaction layered onto coincidence.

Cause and effect are mechanical:
Speeding → Higher chance of being pulled over.
Chronic dishonesty → Erosion of trust.
Neglecting health → Health consequences.

No metaphysical accounting required.

When people insist karma is instantaneous and mind-directable, they are often trying to reclaim control over randomness.
Randomness is terrifying. Systems feel safer.

Which brings us to EIYPO.

In Neville’s framework, EIYPO is a psychological projection: your assumptions about others shape how you interpret and interact with them. Change your assumptions, and the dynamic shifts.

That is relational psychology.

But somewhere along the way, it mutated into: “I can control other people’s behaviour because they are extensions of my consciousness.”

That is where it tips into solipsism. And ethically, it becomes dangerous.

Because if everyone is merely your projection:
– Their autonomy disappears.
– Their suffering becomes your fault.
– Your suffering becomes your fault.
– Abuse becomes “your state.”

That is not empowerment, it is spiritualised narcissism.

1. Cause & effect govern physical systems.
2. Psychological karma governs patterns of mind and behaviour.
3. Your internal state influences how you perceive and respond to others.
4. But other people retain autonomy.
5. You influence fields. You do not script other souls.

You can acknowledge that mindset affects probability and relational dynamics without implying you are bending external will.

Think of it like this: If you walk into a room expecting hostility, your posture, tone, and micro-expressions shift. People respond. That feedback loop feels like manifestation.

But it is bidirectional.
Not unilateral control.

Instant karma narratives simplify complexity because complexity is unsettling. But the universe is not theatrical; it is systemic. Believing in instant, mind-directed karma can become a way to avoid sitting with uncertainty.

Uncertainty is uncomfortable.
But it is honest.

Instant, mind-directed karma does two contradictory things at once:
It inflates control.
It displaces responsibility.

If something good happens, “I manifested it.”
If something bad happens, “Their karma.”

Or worse: “If something bad happens to me, I must have caused it.”

It becomes a moral sorting machine. And moral sorting machines are comforting because they eliminate randomness.

But they are also corrosive.

When you blame others’ suffering on karma, you get to feel superior.
When you blame your own suffering on karma, you get to feel in control.

Both avoid the same thing: Uncertainty.

And uncertainty is the real discomfort.

Sometimes bad things happen because of:
-cause and effect.
-negligence.
-probability.
-another human exercised autonomy badly.
-systems being flawed.
-biology failing.
-the universe’s indifference.

That is harder to sit with than “they deserved it.” Blame — especially metaphysical blame — freezes growth.

If I say, “That driver got pulled over because karma.”

I learn nothing about traffic systems, probability, human behaviour, or my own reaction.

If I say, “That person hurt me because of karma.”

I might miss red flags, boundary failures, or patterns I need to examine.

And if I say: “I was assaulted because I manifested it.”

That is spiritual abuse disguised as empowerment. Placing all causality outside yourself removes agency. Placing all causality inside yourself erases complexity.

Both are distortions.

The middle ground is uncomfortable: “I influence outcomes, but I do not control all variables.”

It allows for:
Learning without self-condemnation.
Accountability without omnipotence.
Compassion without superiority.

Pushing back against this is not bad metaphysics; it is the avoidance of humility. Because if karma is instant and mind-directed, then we are gods pulling strings. If cause and effect are systemic and probabilistic, then we are participants in something bigger than our will.

That is less intoxicating. But more accurate. Blame is often a shortcut around grief.
If someone suffers and we say, “That is their karma,” we do not have to feel their pain.
If we suffer and we say, “That is my karma,” we do not have to feel randomness.

Blame is cleaner than grief.

Believing in instant karma may feel empowering, but it can quietly strip others of agency and ourselves of responsibility. Growth requires accepting influence without claiming omnipotence.

You do not have to dismantle spirituality. You have to dismantle the fantasy of control.

Because control was survival for you. And you know firsthand how expensive that illusion can be. Uncertainty is uncomfortable.

But it is honest. And honesty is more stabilising than superiority ever will be.