::Thank you for this comment. Perhaps your advice "save the view pushing" is something you might reconsider. 

 ::The edits which I undid were seeking to change the direction of the article. You feel that such a change of direction is called for by "the source". You write "the source is causality"; I think you intend by that 'the topic is causality' ? I think your comment does not seem to try make a reasoned case for a change of direction of the article. Rather, it reads as a tad peremptory. 

 ::The present content of the article is mainly on efficient causality. It is true that the concept of karma is a kind of efficient causality. But it is fraught with moral or ethical philosophy, and in that respect it is off topic. Mention of karma here needs to rest on its characteristic of efficient causality. A general account of karma, unrestricted to indicating its character of efficient causality, would open the article to a vast expansion that would be off topic. 

 ::As you observe, in the article there is significant load about Aristotelian aetiology, included because by chance it is in philosophy customary to render the notion of aetiology by the word 'causality', an unfortunate historical relic of language. I think the article's loading about Aristotelian aetiology is excessive, and to a degree also off topic, as I tried to indicate in my just previous edit to this talk page. I think one editor disagrees with me about the latter. 

 ::The relevant result in the article, of the edit that I undid, is a section as follows: 

 

 ::As I read it, the second paragraph of that section is on topic. The first paragraph of it might be generously regarded as introductory and consequently in place. But the third paragraph, newly inserted by the edit that I undid, is pure moral philosophy with no significant weight of causality as such, and is consequently off topic and out of place in this article.