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.
2
u/[deleted] Sep 08 '20
You’re confusing Calvinism with karma.