Kamma is one of the four ”unthinkables” in buddhism = AN4.77
But despite this the Buddha refuted many wrong views regarding our intentional actions, speech and thoughts when talking to others sects.
So how and when in buddhist history did kamma all of a sudden become formulated as an ”Impersonal law of justice in the universe”, when the Buddha never said such a thing himself? Or did he?
That there could even be a ”Law of Karma” is highly problematic for numreous reasons:
*It somehow implies that all those good innocent people suffering unjustly in their current life, still somehow deserve the suffering due to ”past life karma” - but the Buddha refuted the whole ”past life karma”-thing when speaking with the Jains.
So anyone claiming such a thing is wrong from a buddhist point of view.
*Another problem is of course that if you truly believe there is a ”law of karma”- someone doing evil things will, eventually, get back exactly what they put out.
This means that a rapist would need to feel in a future life what it is like to be raped. The problem with this wrong view is of course that thanks to this rapists will never go away! Because thanks to the ”law of karma” someone needs to feel the effects of their evil deeds and others need to commit these evil deeds, rape, in order to balance out the ”karma”. And then those rapists need to be punished by yet other rapists…An never-ending circle of evil deeds FOR NO GOOD AT ALL since it doesn’t destroy the possibility of the evil deeds in question ever going away.
*Kamma is only our intentions. Not a ”impersonal law in the universe” to set things right regarding justice.
Let us say a father has to hurry to the hospital with his daughter with the sole intention of saving her life and on his way there close to the hospital he accidently hits a doctor with his car resulting in the doctor dying. The father had no intention to kill the doctor and to make things worse this doctor was the expert surgeon that was called in to the hospital to save the daughters life…
Everyone involved had good intentions but it ended in a whole nother way.
So that being said surely there never was nor never will be such a thing as: ”the impersonal universal law of karma”…?
————————
What we do find though in buddhism is that evil people go to hell.
There is no mention of hell in the vedas but the Buddha described the various hells in MN 130 in detail. The sutta even ends with the Buddha saying:
I tell you this, monks, not from having heard it from another contemplative or brahman. On the contrary, I tell you this just as I have known for myself, seen for myself, understood for myself.
So instead of claiming there is a ”law of karma” it would be wiser to actually say that rapists and other evil-doers go to hell or have an animal rebirth.
This is the most sensible solution and more likely to put an end to evil intentional actions than having evil deeds continue on and on via ”the law of karma” - for no good whatsoever.
Thoughts?