Karma isn’t “what goes around comes around”

Karma is an ancient Buddhist concept often misunderstood by popular culture. In a Know Things post entitled Karma, author maraungias tries to dispel this modern misconception by explaining the difference (with a woman stealing jewelery as an example):

Conventional wisdom would tell us that Melisa got away scot-free. Lots of karma believers would say that she will pay for it in the end, but the truth is that she has already paid for it. The “consequences” of karmic action are not real-world consequences, nor are they pie-in-the-sky consequences. The karmic consequence of theft is that you are now a thief. Having stolen something intentionally, a person’s concept of law is forever tainted, and theft becomes a viable option in future problem-solving processes.

At their root, both (mis)understandings are derivatives of the (also popularly misunderstood) principle of cause and effect. News flash: your actions, for good or bad, have consequences.

Such truth is reflected in the inanimate world around us, in Newton’s third law: for every action, there is an equal, but opposite, reaction.

In the popular understanding of karma, a person’s actions (positive/negative) in the past will cause similar (positive/negative) yet unrelated reactions to happen to them in the future. It’s cosmic justice: if you do bad things, unrelated bad things will happen to you later on.

However, it differs from Newton’s law in that while the action is opposite (it happens back at you), there’s no guarantee of equality: you might steal a candy bar only to have your house burn down.

There’s also a time delay and a lack of relation between the karmic action and karmic consequences. So I can steal today, and catch a cold tomorrow, and according to pop karma the cold is a punishment for my theft.

Karma binds the two separate events, but how? We are given two options:

1. Karma is an impersonal force of nature that, when pushed by our actions, eventually pushes us back.
2. Karma is the action of an intelligent moderator that observes our actions and then punishes or rewards us accordingly.

In Wicca we have the impersonal Rule of Three, which states: “whatever energy a person puts out into the world, be it positive or negative, will be returned to that person three times”. So much for the equality of Newton’s forces, Wiccan karma bites back thrice!

In Christianity, (and indeed all other Abrahamic religions) God is an ever watchful arbiter that metes out reward and punishment in our lives. In addition, he uses the sum total of our actions to determine our placement in an afterlife. If we sin, we go to hell.

In the Buddhist understanding of karma however, we’re given a different story all together. The karmic consequences of your actions aren’t unrelated future events, but instead immediate and related changes to your character. Karma isn’t about justice: instead it’s a barrier toward the goal of enlightenment. Maraungias writes:

In a lot of situations where a conventional religion might simply claim that justice will come in the end, Buddhist karma strikes immediately, and is not by any means justice. Essentially, karma is the negative force that the world struggles against for enlightenment.

…

When someone criticizes someone’s beliefs, takes a pain pill that they don’t really, really need, or artfully dodges a speeding ticket, their problem is not the consequences it may have on them later. The issue is what it does to their character, and remember that karma is just an internal part of a human being, not something enforced by an exterior entity.

Now, I’ll readily admit that I’m no Buddhist scholar, so you’ll have to look elsewhere for explanations as to how karma stands in your path toward enlightenment.