When you understand that karma is essentially a chain reaction that can eventually involve an innocent person, you begin to see why the concept is flawed.
If I’m not the person directly inflicting suffering on you, how am I supposed to feel satisfied that I have got “paid back”? And how would you even know which event in your life is supposed to be repayment for something you did in the past?
The idea that the person you hurt doesn’t necessarily have to be the one who eventually hurts you is wild. For example, if Mr A hurts Mr B, but Mr B never directly retaliates, and years later Mr C hurts Mr A, Mr B may never even know about it. Meanwhile, Mr C, who was never part of the original conflict has now become the instrument through which Mr A supposedly receives his “karma.”
And if karma is truly a chain reaction, Mr C would then be subjected to suffering from someone else, despite merely being an unintended pawn in a cycle that had nothing to do with him.
At that point, it stops looking like justice and starts looking like an endless chain of unrelated people hurting one another while everyone calls it cosmic balance.
To me, karma is less a system of justice and more a concept that gives hope to people who want to believe that the suffering they experienced will somehow be repaid even when there is no actual connection between the victim, the offender, and the person who eventually causes the suffering.
Got sick of Deutsche Bahn delays, so I built DelayBahn.
It uses historical train delay data to answer the questions that matter:
- How late is this train usually?
- Is there a more reliable alternative?
- Is that 7-min transfer actually realistic?
https://t.co/pTcGB3L5eI