A revisionist approach to karma and how it acts as an equalizer within society
Karma refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where the intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect)[1]. The theory of karma as causality holds that
- Executed actions of an individual affect the individual and the life he or she lives
- The intentions of an individual affect the individual and the life he or she lives. Disinterested actions or unintentional actions do not have the same positive or negative karmic effect, as interested and intentional actions [2].
The philosophy of karma is closely associated with the idea of rebirth in many schools of Indian religions (particularly Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism) as well as Taoism [3], but what if we could minimize the term to an almost differential approach of individual mental states?
From now on I will refer to karma in a revisionist way, not as in doing good with intention, but in receiving good without intention. The meaning and objective of analysis will still be the same since “giving” is the opposite of “receiving” and the same goes for “with” and “without”.
We often think in the most literal way, that if you do good, you will receive good (Karma balance). An objective and broader approach would be instead that Karma is a society-based balancer that strives to maintain the mental status of all of its individuals on a straight line.
Capitalists like to say that poverty is a necessity in a free-market economy and that it helps to bestow a balance to the financial ecosystem of its own. Bringing this almost sadistic approach to the happiness and sadness of the population after each event (the event being how single episodes impact each person specifically) we come to the example of Joe.
Joe is a smart guy that, as every person on earth, is guided by its own emotions. One day he wakes up early unexpectedly, so he can now have breakfast, have a shower and head off to the office fresh as a tomato. He gets there and unexpectedly he closes 1 serious deal with an important client, goes to eat with his girlfriend, and has an overall great day. He then goes back to the office smiling, sits on his desk and suddenly BOOM his investments skyrocketed making him a lot of money. What is the effect a great day on Joe’s life has on this new form of global objective Karma?
We could easily hypothesize that If Joe has a great day and everything goes better than it should normally, then somebody else is having a worse than normal outcome on his events, but in practice, this holds in a small percentage of cases.
How many times have we stopped ourselves and thought “Things are going way too good”?
My answer would be many times. And when things are going too good to be true, it means they probably are.
Life itself works its way to ensure that no unbalance is hold in the macrostate of not only the society itself but also its own individuals and their own mental states. This impacts a single person by putting his mind in a straight line in a given period of time (maybe a day, maybe a week). By balancing the objective karma of each individual a macrostate of equality is bestowed onto the population, but it’s clearer to see with an example.
You plan ahead of time a year full of really important stuff you have to do and that you acknowledge, it’s gonna be hard to achieve. You give the best of you for it to happen and it seems to be all happening with ease, but remember that when someone strives, someone’s being neglected. Here it comes the reality strike: a global pandemic the world hasn’t seen in 100 years ruining all the momentum you were having.
This of course does not (by any chance) means that a pandemic might be caused by the strive of individuals, but that it acts as a balancer for some people that, believe it or not, are thankful this pandemic happened.
If you abstract from yourself and try to see this pattern in other people you’ll realize that most often than not when people have a streak of good or bad outcomes, most likely they’re about to live an equally antagonist event in the near future. The higher the up, the lower the down. This should not, however, mean that you’re destined to not be happy, for every person reacts to events in a different way (putting things like maturity aside) and at the very end, the true objective of an individual should never be live a happy life, but be happy instead.
[1] Karl Potter (1964), The Naturalistic Principle of Karma, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 14, №1 (Apr. 1964), pp. 39–49
[2] Anguttara-Nikaya 3.4.33, Translator: Henry Warren (1962), Buddhism in Translations, Atheneum Publications, New York, pp 216–217
[3] Eva Wong, Taoism, Shambhala Publications, ISBN 978–1590308820, pp. 193
