Karma is a term usually associated with Eastern Religions and New Age Philosophy. That’s a shame, because the best way to understand the theory of karma is to associate it with physics, and particularly, with Sir Isaac Newton.

Newton’s Third Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and the concept of karma is simply that law extrapolated. Whether the extrapolation is valid is a matter for debate, but the basis of karma, the principle on which it is based is absolutely sound.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The force that counterbalances the explosive power of a rocket’s engines is the rocket’s forward thrust. The force that counterbalances a champagne cork hitting the ceiling is the recoil of the bottle against our leg. The force that counterbalances the tension in an elevator cable is gravity. That we know. When we extrapolate the concept beyond bodies in motion, though, we get the fascinating proposition that there's a force that counterbalances all forms of will, and that theoretical force is called karma.

Newton’s Third Law suggests that we live in a perfectly elastic cosmos – whenever the fabric of reality is pushed or pulled one way or another, an equal and opposite force is generated; it’s how the universe returns to balance. Imagine the universe as a taut rubber sheet – push it and it pushes back, pull it and it pulls back. This universal function has also been called the Law of Equilibrium, and it applies equally to all physical things. But karma takes this a considerable step further, and says that it’s applicable to will; that is, that it is applicable to not just our physical actions, but the consequences of our physical actions, as well as our feelings and thoughts, and the consequences of our feelings and thoughts.

The reason for suggesting that Newton’s Third Law can be extrapolated is this: What limits Newton’s Third Law to rockets, champagne corks, and elevators? If it’s a true law, why doesn’t it operate in all contexts?

So what do we get if Newton’s Third Law operates in all contexts? Well, fasten your seatbelt.

All actions, emotions, desires and thoughts, as products of will, would necessarily recoil on their initiator. To initiate a violent act would guarantee us the role somewhere, sometime, as the victim of a violent act. To initiate a hurtful act would guarantee us the role somewhere, sometime, as the recipient of a hurtful act. To initiate a kindly act would guarantee us the role somewhere, sometime, as the beneficiary of a kindly act. With each action, emotion, desire and thought, we would create our future experiences. An extrapolated Newton's Third Law would enable us to change all our future circumstances and relationships through the exercise of our will, with absolute confidence in the results.

It would also mean that it’s not possible to receive what we’ve never given. That’s a hard one to get your head around, but it basically means that our current experiences are the direct result of what we’ve done, felt, desired, and thought – in the past. If we were a victim of a violent act, or a recipient of a hurtful or a kindly act, it would be an assurance of some measure of participation in similar acts somewhere in our past. While we might like the thought of karma as it applies to a good deed that we do today coming back to us at a later date, how comfortable are you with the concept when it applies to victims of rape or genocide? But let me be clear: you can’t have it one way and not the other.

If we accept the concept of karma we also have to accept the concept of reincarnation, because the concept is nonsense without it. Crimes against a child, which according to the theory of karma requires a measure of participation in similar acts by that child, is obviously not possible without the concept of past lives.

Karma changes a few other things too. If the concept is correct, to injure our neighbour would cause us suffering of the same nature and the same magnitude, so we may as well poke our self in the eye, or shoot our self in the foot. Newton’s Third Law would be the foundation of ethics. It would also mean that the wise do good, not because they’re saints, but because they know that they’re the direct beneficiaries of the good they do others. The selfish bastards. Karma would remove all distance between virtue and self-interest.

I have two points:

First, don’t dismiss the concept of karma because it’s unsound. Its basis is not unsound. To dismiss it you have to argue why Newton’s Third Law cannot be extrapolated beyond ‘bodies in motion’. But second, don’t accept the concept of karma as some ‘nice concept’ that means ‘what goes around comes around’. To accept the concept of karma you have to get your head around its totality. How confident would you be of asserting your belief in karma at a Victims of Crime meeting, or the Hague War Crimes Tribunal?

If you enjoyed reading this work, please spread the word about this site.