The Question of Karma: and why I cannot agree with it...

----------

I’ve been thinking about this concept known as ‘Karma’. It’s an interesting belief system, but it seems to me that the tacit assumptions underlying it are not often considered. This I shall do here as I explain why I cannot agree with it.

In its positive occurrence it is understood to take the form of good actions returning to those who have previously taken good actions. For example, if one finds some money on the ground, this might be interpreted as the positive return of some previous charitable action that person had done (eg. helping out a financially strapped friend). The correlation need not be direct, as in this example, but the idea remains the same: a person receives good because they gave good. The negative occurrence would take the form of bad/hurtful actions returning to those who have previously undertaken some bad/hurtful action. Perhaps a person trips and falls, spraining his/her ankle in the process; this would be understood as being due to some previous bad action (such as insulting or hurting another person). In both of its forms (positive and negative), Karma is understood as the return of one’s actions. The idea is, put simply, one of cause and effect: actions (the cause), whether good or bad, will be returned in kind (the effect).

I take issue with this system of understanding on two accounts. The first problem I have with Karma as a belief system is its answer to the problem of pain. It is difficult to argue against the realization that suffering is an intrinsic part of life here on earth. When asking why this is so, it is important to remember that Karma is essentially retributive in nature: the central concepts at work are punishment and reward. It is a merit based system. Thus, if one is suffering, it is because one has done something to deserve the suffering. I disagree with this answer both philosophically and experientially. As many before me have done, I look around and see ‘bad’ people prospering and ‘good’ people suffering. I cannot abide by a belief system which seeks to hold a starving child accountable for his/her deplorable condition. I cannot abide by a belief system which looks at the poor and the downtrodden and tells them that they have dug their own hole. This seems a cold, perhaps cruel, belief system, which does not account for the problem of pain in a satisfactory way which reflects the reality of life (at least as far as I understand it).

The second problem I have with Karma as a belief system follows the first. Not only does it seem cold, to the point of cruelty, but it does not allow for grace and love. It is important to understand that grace cannot exist in a strictly merit based system. Grace is only possible when the person receiving the grace is undeserving of it. Grace by definition cannot be earned. Grace is the incarnation of love; it is love in embodied, love in action. Karma, as a belief system, does not have room for love. If love keeps no record of wrongs, and I believe this to be true, then Karma and love are incompatible. Since I believe in love, and I do with all that I am, then I cannot believe in Karma.

----------