what an unpleasant revelation;
I thought the idea of "karma", as I understood it, was both notionally uplifting and often pragmatic. As a sociable beast, while I fuck up regularly, I
aim at being a decent bloke on top of my principles because
in a broad sense (I'm no witch nor hippy) I do believe through experience that what goes around comes around.
Lovely little idea.
Then I read:
Although there must have been a great deal of early intermarriage in India, nowhere did such an Indo-European social system become as rigid a system of birth as there. The rigidity may well be due to the influence of the idea of karma, that poor birth is morally deserved. [link]Woah. (dude.)
I'd never thought of karma as a way to argue that those born to a poor life deserve their fate and those born to riches have earned them, as one's karma represents the sum of one's actions in life (and perhaps previous lives).
The "Law of Karma" is a powerful explanatory theory, but its strength may also turn out to be its weakness. It may explain too much.
If every natural evil is the result of bad karma, which they must be to answer the Problem of Evil, then there is really no such thing as an innocent victim in life.
This introduces a certain fatalism and callousness, fatalism because everything is as it should be, good and bad, and cannot be otherwise, and callousness because even the most apparently innocent victim must really be guilty. [link]What a completely horrible way to think. I can see the (il)logic, I just can't say I care for it.
Rather than think about it as "a mean reason for an altruistic-sounding concept", I think I shall cheer myself up by considering the way
I understand the word to be a happy misinterpretation of an inherently mean concept.