What is wrong with my vision of karma?

The matter raised by XXXX is discussed in the following Sutta. -------------------

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is perception permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"What do you think of this, O monks? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, those that are impermanent, are they unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, those that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard them as: 'They are mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel268.html

Adding to xxxx's answer:

The division between the body and the universe is illusory: consciousness doesn't end where flesh ends.

The net of causes works regardless "inside body" or "outside".

Causes acting "inside body" and those acting "outside body" aren't marked as having different owners.

Like a multitude of ants can gather on a spot, creating a crowd of certain form, and then can leave the spot, likewise causes can create body and its activities, not being and not becoming one thing even for a moment.

Thus, body as one thing is illusory.

Likewise, consciousness as one thing is illusory.

Multitude of causes can form in space thicker spots and thinner spots, being interpreted as working of consciousness, but that does not divide more crowded places from less crowded, just like a crowd of people on a holiday usually doesn't have definite border.

Likewise, there is no definite border between "causes creating me" (or "acting as me") and "causes which are not me".

Feelings can be seen as caused by conditions, thoughts can be seen as caused by conditions, actions can be seen as caused by conditions. Where is "me"?

Tracking causes which create "my" feelings, thoughts, actions, we can see endless chains or bundles of causality. Where in those chains could be borders set between "already me" and "not me yet"?

Conditions, "created by different people", intertwine, fusing and creating new conditions. So can makings by different people be physically separated? As causes intertwine, can karma of different people be truly separated?

How karma works, in accumulation and cessation, see:

Problem with the logic of karma

PS:

it is bound to be constantly reborn until it can balance out that equation. It can't just blend back into the whole again until it is neutral.

There is nothing to release and nothing to balance, because everything is already balanced every moment, and everything is already released.

Causality in Hindi/Buddhism is not understood as in the Western cause-and-effect - as if - 'I hit something and it gets kinetic energy'.

It is co-arising: a seed and a moist soil may give rise to a sprout.

Karma is an effect of co-arising causality, not of I/O of cause and effect, and it is an extremely complex phenomena;

To be in the "web of illusions" is essentially entangling the mind in these co-arising factors and being suffocated or attached to them, to be liberated from Samsara is ultimately to be unbound from these illusions, thus performing techniques that are extensively used to cut through the chain of delusions, attachment, ignorance, envy etc.

"It is bound to be constantly reborn until it can balance out that equation. It can't just blend back into the whole again until it is neutral." - I agree with your view (not from a "Buddhist" perspective, but personal) - 'nothing is lost in nature' - it is not easy to "disappear" once born into a pre-existent set of relations.

Yet, that is neither misfortune, not a trap, most Buddhists cherished the body as a "treasure to acquire" in the chain of being - on Earth.

From a Theravada Buddhist perspective, this theory suffers from the error of an enduring self. It is dependent on their being a persistent consciousness or, at minimum, some sort of enduring higher self. From a Mahayana perspective, this theory establishes an erroneous dichotomy between form and emptiness. There is ultimately no distinction between the bag (i.e. the body), consciousness, and the universe.