I have always had an issue with the notion of ‘karma’ and how it is popularly defined. Karma is widely seen as acts or actions that play major roles in the universal cause and affect game. I sometimes like to call that the accountant’s view of the universe.
This definition is widely accepted in the west (and also the east) because it acts as an important release valve from the depressing church concept of “eternal damnation”. It is much more easy to buy into the accounting concept because it implies that everything we do matters because all deeds, good or bad, are accounted for. And before the live(s) are over, the accounting books must balance.
One direct corollary of the karmic system is the concept of reincarnation, which I am not sure if every believer in karma subscribes to. That is a bit of a stretch from the Christian point of view because it flies right in the face of teachings of the church.
The issue I have had with this popular definition is that I could never quite imagine or have the leap of faith to believe that there is some god out there keeping accounting ledgers on everything I say or do. It was an incomplete view of the world that made perfect sense by itself, but when compared to other things in life it just fell apart.
Recently, I was studying Hinduism and I came across the concept of karma once again. But this time, perhaps I was mature or receptive enough to see a different side of this concept. This is how I understand karma now…
Karma, in Sanskrit, literally means “action” or doing. When someone says the phrase “your karma”, it literally means “Your doing”. Thats it. Nothing more.
I bet this sounds incredibly simple and almost stupid so far, but let me provide some context. Context in this case being the founding principle of Hinduism, i.e. you, I, trees, rocks, every single `thing’ there is, is the Godhead playing the role in a play (lila). So when someone says “your karma”, it literally means, “the thing you do when you play the role”.
Alan Watts once described karma as “not letting your left hand from know what your right hand is doing”. That simply means the same thing. Karma are the actions in the act that you play to delude ourselves from realizing that you are god!
It took me some time to really understand this viewpoint, but now it all actually fits together. Once this more correct definition (in my humble opinion) of karma is understood it is actually possible to see why the popular definition of karma was invented. The popular definition is essentially saying the same thing, except it is far more metaphorical. It is incredibly nihilistic. Can you just imagine being caught in the karmic circle of lives, constantly trying to balance the ledger, but every act you do, adds something to one of the columns and throws the balance off. Even the act of balancing the book is something that needs to be accounted, thus defeating the balancing act.
When someone realizes that it is a logically impossible to get out of the karmic circle, a certain nihilistic clarity sets in. And then the fun begins…
By far, the most intelligible definition and analysis of karma, I’ve heard yet. Keep up the damned fine work. Oh, and I dig the whole “using nihilism as a base for our thoughts rather than their goal” aspect of your philosophy. Though I wonder if that is not, perhaps, wandering a bit overly close to existentialism. Damn the existentialists! Viva la Nada!!!
I’ve always just thought it was egoistic to believe that the universe would respond personally to your actions. It’s Pavlovian and simple-minded.
I’d rather just dispense with this sort of verbiage myself and move to more materialistic words and usages.
I’ve never liked the popular usage. It’s just Pavlovian and simple-minded. I’d rather move to a lexicon that isn’t saddled with religious baggage, something more materialistic.