"Karmic trajectories rush inevitably to balance forces when no further actions continue manifesting results which themselves must be appropriately paid."

"Karmic trajectories" = the general trend, apparent path of the ship of any "self". Some people seem to tend toward the good and others toward the worst (of choices). Trajectory is not fate but more like the momentum of a large ship at sea. It can slowly be changed.

"rush inevitably to balance forces" = the momentum of cause-effect (action-result) seeking equilibrium = arc of the moral universe (a near universal value).

"when no further actions continue manifesting results" = (awkward sentence construction) until we cease adding more momentum to our trajectory, we continue accruing karmic debt (imbalance). Our continuing actions bring added consequences that need resolution, while we carry still outstanding previously accrued balances.

"which themselves must be appropriately paid" = in the 'karmic-model' and in common-mores, we postulate that the consequences of our actions will be adjusted (debits and credits balanced); some say death is less final on a moral scale than on a human scale.

Karma-ethic ought to be thought of, less as reward-retribution-punishment, and more like gravity- unseen but certain.

Karmic trajectories rush inevitably to balance forces when no further actions continue manifesting results which themselves must be appropriately paid. The piper will not be put off.

I hope never to share Rush's realms.

People, there are, whose karmic trajectories will bring results desired, not as reward but rather as paid-interest on investment.
Of these folk we can say, "They choose wisely". I hope to be "One".

Desires impel choices that initiate actions that become habits. Once one becomes a karmic-clown, the path to which realm will be roamed is, as though, set in stone.

*The word Bhagavan can be understood as cosmic-balance in stillness. Like pendulums coming to rest; consequences cease when activity is stilled.

Consciousness exists. This is in disputable. Indeed consciousness is required to even try denying the existence of consciousness.

Consciousness is non-negateable because (again) it takes consciousness to know or to deny, to prove or refute anything.
One's own conscious-beingness is self-evident, requiring no proof. "I know I am" is a priori to knowing who I am (gender, nationality, desires, interests, occupation, activity, all other concepts).

Knowledge exists in consciousness. There is nothing known except by consciousness. Without consciousness, nothing can be explained.
Consciousness can not be explained away. Science can reveal where to find in the brain, various emotions, intentions, memories and other 'objects of consciousness" and activity.
Science can't explain nor negate consciousness-knowingness (separate from the known) without using the very consciousness that is being investigated.

Thus the Vedas call ultimate reality "sat-chit-ananta" or satcitananda.
Sat=existence
Chit=consciousness
Ananta=limitless; or ananda, usually called bliss but better understood as free of all limitations.

Consciousness is not equivalent to 'what is known', the objects of consciousness, nor to the brain nor to that of which we are aware.

...(pregnant pause) fricasseed."

The insanity of the reality of people believing 'stupidity' is indeed dangerous as said in a post above.
The Qanuts must be identified as and treated as too mentally-different to be accepted in sane society; their subjective projection upon the manifest world is beyond any morally-acceptable societal norms; the Qanuts are beyond the continuum of socially tolerated activity.

This is not a matter of manners or mores like some gentile southern customs or pre-JFK expectations of good teens.
This is a matter of a social-pathology infecting the collective psyche of society.
Acted out delusions of dull minds, like infected boils, must be lanced, drained, cleansed and salved.
There is pain and will be pain, but temporary pain is to be preferred to permanent poisoning.

The sociology class homework assignment, now over-due, is to write an essay about the role of guns in deterministic behavior

Premise:
The act of choosing (or not) to have a gun (or more guns) may be considered a free-will action.

Discussion:
Does the possession of a gun limit free-will choice?
Is the quantity of guns possessed a positive sign or a sign of "possession?