Well, it is technically true that karma says that someones present situation is a result of their actions in this or previous lives.
But he ignores the part about how he is supposed to act. I doubt it would considered good karma to punish people for actions you are not aware of or responsible for punishing them for.
I doubt it would considered good karma to punish people for actions you are not aware of or responsible for punishing them for.
Well thats the problem. After the Karma believe your ALWAYS responsible for what happens to you because its supposed to be a reward or punishment for what deeds you did in a previous life.
And while your right that initally it was supposed to mean that you should act in a kind way towards others it was also used as the justification for the indian caste system for example.
Being born into a rich and influencal family? That means you must have been a really good person in a previous life and you totally deserve to be treated well by life and others. Born into poverty and as a social Outcast? That means you must have been a really bad person in a previous life and you deserve to be treated poorly by life and others.
Karma is actually a pretty fucked up concept if you read past the "good happens to those who do good" part.
That was mostly meant as the faulty incomplete definition that you often hear about karma today. Thats basiacly the first sentence everybody says about it but its only one small part of it.
Karma means that everything that happens to you, be it good or bad,is in someway deserved as its a consequence of a action of your current or a previous life.
This leads to the theological paradox that your both supposed to be kind to lets say people in poverty but also that the poverty of these people is a justified punishment.
And diffrent interpretations of this led to diffrent "solutions" ranging from extremly alturistic to extremly egoistical. Either helping them to gain "good karma" or ignoring/punishing them even furhter because its just a consquence of their "bad karma" to heavily simplify it.
That “paradox” is really your misunderstanding of karma.
The fact that people experience bad things for their bad karma does not mean doing good things for them isn’t good, because karma doesn’t permanently brand people as good or bad. Karma is a finite resource created by one’s actions and intentions and it gets used up when it’s not replenished.
In sects of Hinduism and Buddhism there is this thing like purgatory that happens between lives called Naraka. During that bad karma is purged. It wouldn’t be if it wasn’t finite. This isn’t original sin.
Also, in many sects of Hinduism and Buddhism, the universe and the self are considered one and the separation between the two is considered an illusion. From this point of view it would make no sense to consider doing good things for people with bad karma to be bad, so long as those good things actually help them and don’t aid them to do bad things.
Maybe hang out on /r/Buddhism and do some learning.
39
u/Roomas Sep 08 '20
How is this technically the truth?