|
Karma is a great concept. It fits into the same space as religion; making people nicer than they realistically need to be, with the promise of granting them immaterial rewards at an unknown time. (i.e. a free way of making people go out of their way to be nice).
Having said that, however, there's certainly some inconsistencies.
If Karma is really some sort of cosmic force, and you believe you can run out, how can you quantify how quickly it fills up? If you have $1 to your name, and you use all of it to feed someone else for a day, or you're a billionaire and you feed a family for a week for $7, which one grants more karmic rewards?
If the second one grants less because it costs you less comparatively, then there's this huge inconsistency. Obviously, it's best to shed yourself of all material wealth in order to score higher on the karma metre. But in doing so, don't you therefore reduce your capacity to have the power to do more?
In the above scenario, say the billionaire donated it to charity, in order to go work as a missionary somewhere. Now all his money has been spent by the charities. If he'd invested it instead, and say 10 years down the road had 3 billion dollars, and donated 2 of those to charity, clearly this is a case where he's scored more karma for a worse outcome.
And, ultimately, if you're a lazy arse like I am, only really wanting to make money, get a place, and retire ASAP, but you're a generally nice person, does that make your selfish goals in life override your pleasant demeanor?
And where does any of this encourage you to attempt to live a relatively enjoyable life?
|
