means action, or deed, in Sanskrit.
Which also means that Karma was initially a neutral term. So where did the positives and negatives come from? Beats me. But for now, let's just take Karma in its popular meaning.
If Karma existed, 警察要来干嘛? If someone committed a crime, then "just leave it all up to Karma" lah. He'll be punished eventually, right?
Or maybe, the law is one of the hands of Karma. If so, then why are there criminals who escape punishment? Why are there innocent people tried for things they didn't do? Or maybe, "he'll be punished by his Karma someday".
Doesn't this sound like mere self-consolation? Or I should say, Karma has always been our tool for self-consolation.
Also, since there is "accumulation of Karma", there must be some measure for Karma too. But whose measure of Karma should we take? The doer of the deed? The receiver of the deed? Or an observer of the deed?
And what should we view natural disasters as? Karma? (And be lambasted like what happened to a certain actress?) Or "it just happened to be like that"?
You know what I call the latter? Double standards. Hypocrisy.
Well, if Karma had to be balanced, then Nature should be part of the accounts too. FYI, we are all generating an insurmountable amount of bad Karma right now. Therefore, we will all be mutilated in our last lives at the end of the world. Wait, that will still be 死有余辜. The Karma won't balance!
Yeah, so, Karma is purely-imaginary. It doesn't really exist. It was invented for the proliferation of good deeds, banking on the unknown "afterlife".
I believe that "what goes around comes around", but definitely not in the Karmic way. There has to be a logical course and cause for everything that happens. Things can't happen "just because". But the cause-and-effect nature of things cannot justify something like "he was hit by an accident because he escaped punishment for his crime".
In any case, I'm not saying that Karma is a bad thing. After all, look at all the good Karma has brought us.
So, maybe, let us continue being fooled.