The essence of karma can be boiled down to the proverb ‘You reap what you sow.’ Good deed begets good results. Bad deed begets bad results.
Remember that one time you took your little brother’s candies for yourself when mom explicitly told you to share them? Later on, your mom found out when your brother cried and so you got no more candies for the rest of the month. That was a bad karma.
Or the other time in highschool when you befriended a nerdy guy who got bullied simply because you think he was pitiful. Turned out he was very good at math and helped you with the algebra homework. That was a good karma.
In Buddhism, there is no god. So there is no one judging whether your action was good or bad. There is no divine judgment dictating that you will lose your precious belonging if you steal something or that helping your friend at an exam will guarantee you an A in science. The rule of karma simply states that every single one of your action has consequence. And that good karma cannot undo bad karma. Donating your life’s saving to a foundation will not save you from the karma of that one time you stole a penny. Surely the reward of such good deed will be magnificent. But you will still have to face the consequence of that small bad karma regardless.
Now on to the paradox.
Consider the US president. It does not have to be Donald Trump but he does exemplify my point.
A human being with such status, power, wealth and fame would surely need to have built up so much good karma. After all, he is the most influential and powerful man in the modern world.
Borrowing the quote from Voltaire, ‘With great power comes great responsibility.’ The president is responsible for making decision affecting people worldwide. More likely he has to make hundreds of decisions everyday. Such decisions, from lowering corporate tax rate in the US to imposing tariffs on Chinese imports, affect people’s livelihood across the globe. Thousands, possibly millions, of factory workers in China were put out of jobs because of his decisions to impose tariffs. Business owners in other countries became bankrupt leading some to commit suicide.
If the rule of karma holds true then the president will be subject to this karma as with any other action. I do not know what would the consequence of indirectly causing people to commit suicide be. But in Buddhism, a murderer outright killing a thousand people would need to repay this karma by a thousand rebirth ending each life being murdered.
And since it is inevitable for the president to refrain from making any decision, then it can be concluded that upon taking the position, he will certainly be subject to bad karma. A lot of bad karma.
But wait. Did the president not amass such good karma so it resulted in him attaining such powerful position? If good karma leads to presidency which then leads to inevitable bad karma, then something is wrong here.
This does not only apply to the president but any person with enough influence in the context of modern society. For example, a CEO of the company may thrive on outcompeting rival leading to layoff, thus subject to bad karma.
So is the karma system flawed? Or is it not ‘scalable’ with modern society as globalization amplifies the reach and effect of anyone’s action? I do not have the answer.
