Thanks, as always, Ji! Learning that actions (cause) have consequences (effects) is a key milestone in raising one's children and for their future adult lives. Actions can lead to positive, neutral, and negative outcomes. In this world it would seem that understanding this is the only path to skillful living, i.e. developing meaningful relationships, earning a living, avoiding the legal system, and having a chance at a life not filled with negative consequences. Just because the cause and effect phenomenon appears to be the nature of the universe does not mean that we can attach a moral purpose behind it. I also love that Krishna gets the nuance in Chapter 2 of the Bhagavadgita that not acting is acting!
As I have remarked previously addressing another of your writings, I love MLK, but thinks he misses the mark when he says that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." The universe just "is," sat. Justice is an entirely human construct. The lion does not think "justice" when he eats the poacher. In an indifferent but actioning universe, the only justice humans can experience is what we create by our own actions. Would it be wonderful if the universe was moral and that bad actors eventually pay for their actions? Of course. As you point out in your piece, believing in a just universe is a bypass. If we want accountability, we have to create it ourselves.
ps: I have always wondered about the Ritualists insistence on the efficacy of their rituals. Either they only asked for the guaranteed stuff, like "I do this so the sun will rise tomorrow," or they were good at accepting a failed ritual. As far as I can tell, asking for the universe to solve your problems probably doesn’t work too well. As the Stones understated it, "you can't always get what you want."
This piece was a bit of refutation, both for the natural goodness argument (that was the in previous note about the Dharma and Taoists) and the karma-includes-morality (that we find in early Bism, the Gita, really everywhere). I think both are mistaken projections onto a universe of power that is wholly amoral, indifferent. The Christian “arc of moral universe” argument has also to contend with their god who apparently is impotent or needs a complicated free will argument just to exist at all. God speaks, literally, theodicy is the fancy word for the problem of evil. If this god exists and I get to meet him (N.B., got to be a “him” if he exists), then we will indeed have words. Karma is the Indian way of having bad things happen to good people and still have a god, ask Krsna (in BG). But there is an alternative to all this nonsense. To wit, a karma that describes cause and effect, consequences that we then attribute value to—-and all of that being a human projection and invention. The more interesting question is whether humans would have evolved as we are had we not had the ability to intervene with some kind of moral projection. We likely need a modicum of ethical projection to survive ourselves and address the ordinary violence of the amoral natural world.
Robert Duval said in Secondhand Lions "sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe IN (my caps) the most. That people are basically good, that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything...that good always triumphs over evil...that true love never dies. Whether it is true or not, a man should believe in things because these are the things worth believing IN." I guess I do believe IN karma!
Richard, I think Dr King's use of "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" has pragmatic utility, and for that reason we ought apply the principle of charity about the fact that strictly speaking yes, it misses the mark. But when you are addressing your people and your people are descendants of those who have been captured and sold into slavery and have endured discrimination, you know where I'm going...using the idea of justice as reward for all that has been endured is efficacious, because without that idea of some kind of salvation there is simply no way to find meaning from the history. Perhaps it's an existential balm but applied alongside the struggle for justice that balm was and remains helpful.
When my mother took her final breaths at 56 years old having suffered horribly through cancer, I, along with my immediate family, was at her bedside. Within a couple of minutes of her last rattle (and it was a rattle) one of our oldest neighbors was in the room leading us in a decade of the rosary. I had been an atheist for years at that point, but did I join in the prayers? OF COURSE I did. Did that recitation provide something, anything ,to hang onto in those first moments of the finality of her death? Yes it did and that in itself is more important than whether the prayers that make up the rosary track what is. They don't but at that time it really didn't matter, they were simply the next right thing to do.
Hi DOuglas - I've enjoyed reading your comments, including this one. It reminds me that many years ago I discussed extensively with Edwin Bryant the meaning of jāti in Yogasūtras 2.31. Literally, of course, it means "birth," but as you also know is the usual Indian word for "caste." Edwin's contention, which made sense to me and appears as such his translation and commentary, was that jāti, along with place (deśa), time (kāla), and current conditions (samaya), were instrumental in determining spiritual practice and the prospects of "spiritual evolution" (an overused term that has always troubled me, and still does). Edwin received a lot of pushback on this, but I think he's right, especially after experiencing continuing gropup karma, including today in the assassination of the Ayatollah in Iran. Jāti, it seemed to Edwin, meant a birth community, such as a caste of brahmins or vaiśyas, as well as Jews, Navajos, Tibetan Buddhists, Australian aborigines, and, indeed, present day Americans, with their shared and eccentric belief in their manifest destiny and exceptionalism. The problem with all spiritual and nationalist groups is their claims of special access to privileged knowledge and (usually) an exclusive claim to a level of consciousness. This, to me ads up to karma, group karma. Edwin , as you also know, has remained a faithful if intellectually questioning ISKCON member since the 1970s, so has his own set of practices and beliefs. ETc. Enough for the moment. BUt I thought I would share a few more words on karma. Om
You’re kind to read and reply, actually I feel honored that you have. Who better understands Vedic ritual than you? And who better qualified to take up the arguments of karma in its storied, complex history? I blow no smoke when I say your Self Possessed has been an incredible resource for me over the years.
I too have taken to Edwin’s reading of Patanjali and as you point out here this reading of jāti—-more like the cohort in which you are born? Something like that. I cannot think there is anything like “spiritual evolution” but for the notion that individuals can become better people over the course of a lifetime of self-reflection and integrity sustained. “Special” or this case “evolved” people eventuates into some kind of authoritarian claim, there are no superior humans—-another facet of the Indian traditions that my own teacher (an Aiyar Tamil brahmin by birth) wholly rejected. There’s just us, humans trying to get to along and when we find out that living with ourselves is the hard part then maybe we become better at living with others.
So interesting! In society, we choose to agree on generally accepted conventions (red means stop, green means go, killing people=bad) in order to get by in life. But morality can be twisted to suit one's own narrative. From the inconsequential "I told my grandma I loved the sweater she knitted me," to the self-serving "not guilty, Your Honor," we can use words to tell un-truths. We can choose actions that harm ourselves or others- either inadvertently or on purpose. We can tell ourselves that we are making war in service of a god or a "divine plan" when in reality we are murdering elementary school children. (Sorry, the news is getting to me today.)
It makes sense that Karma doesn't get ya right away, because otherwise you think we'd have figured it all out by now, yeah? But I want to reject the notion that I have to carry the Karma of my ancestors and my (purported) past lives. It's too much responsibility. It's hard enough managing being a good person in this lifetime.
Thanks, as always, Ji! Learning that actions (cause) have consequences (effects) is a key milestone in raising one's children and for their future adult lives. Actions can lead to positive, neutral, and negative outcomes. In this world it would seem that understanding this is the only path to skillful living, i.e. developing meaningful relationships, earning a living, avoiding the legal system, and having a chance at a life not filled with negative consequences. Just because the cause and effect phenomenon appears to be the nature of the universe does not mean that we can attach a moral purpose behind it. I also love that Krishna gets the nuance in Chapter 2 of the Bhagavadgita that not acting is acting!
As I have remarked previously addressing another of your writings, I love MLK, but thinks he misses the mark when he says that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." The universe just "is," sat. Justice is an entirely human construct. The lion does not think "justice" when he eats the poacher. In an indifferent but actioning universe, the only justice humans can experience is what we create by our own actions. Would it be wonderful if the universe was moral and that bad actors eventually pay for their actions? Of course. As you point out in your piece, believing in a just universe is a bypass. If we want accountability, we have to create it ourselves.
ps: I have always wondered about the Ritualists insistence on the efficacy of their rituals. Either they only asked for the guaranteed stuff, like "I do this so the sun will rise tomorrow," or they were good at accepting a failed ritual. As far as I can tell, asking for the universe to solve your problems probably doesn’t work too well. As the Stones understated it, "you can't always get what you want."
This piece was a bit of refutation, both for the natural goodness argument (that was the in previous note about the Dharma and Taoists) and the karma-includes-morality (that we find in early Bism, the Gita, really everywhere). I think both are mistaken projections onto a universe of power that is wholly amoral, indifferent. The Christian “arc of moral universe” argument has also to contend with their god who apparently is impotent or needs a complicated free will argument just to exist at all. God speaks, literally, theodicy is the fancy word for the problem of evil. If this god exists and I get to meet him (N.B., got to be a “him” if he exists), then we will indeed have words. Karma is the Indian way of having bad things happen to good people and still have a god, ask Krsna (in BG). But there is an alternative to all this nonsense. To wit, a karma that describes cause and effect, consequences that we then attribute value to—-and all of that being a human projection and invention. The more interesting question is whether humans would have evolved as we are had we not had the ability to intervene with some kind of moral projection. We likely need a modicum of ethical projection to survive ourselves and address the ordinary violence of the amoral natural world.
Robert Duval said in Secondhand Lions "sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe IN (my caps) the most. That people are basically good, that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything...that good always triumphs over evil...that true love never dies. Whether it is true or not, a man should believe in things because these are the things worth believing IN." I guess I do believe IN karma!
Yes, morality is adaptive. Social Darwinianism.
Richard, I think Dr King's use of "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" has pragmatic utility, and for that reason we ought apply the principle of charity about the fact that strictly speaking yes, it misses the mark. But when you are addressing your people and your people are descendants of those who have been captured and sold into slavery and have endured discrimination, you know where I'm going...using the idea of justice as reward for all that has been endured is efficacious, because without that idea of some kind of salvation there is simply no way to find meaning from the history. Perhaps it's an existential balm but applied alongside the struggle for justice that balm was and remains helpful.
When my mother took her final breaths at 56 years old having suffered horribly through cancer, I, along with my immediate family, was at her bedside. Within a couple of minutes of her last rattle (and it was a rattle) one of our oldest neighbors was in the room leading us in a decade of the rosary. I had been an atheist for years at that point, but did I join in the prayers? OF COURSE I did. Did that recitation provide something, anything ,to hang onto in those first moments of the finality of her death? Yes it did and that in itself is more important than whether the prayers that make up the rosary track what is. They don't but at that time it really didn't matter, they were simply the next right thing to do.
Thank you for sharing.This resonates
Hi DOuglas - I've enjoyed reading your comments, including this one. It reminds me that many years ago I discussed extensively with Edwin Bryant the meaning of jāti in Yogasūtras 2.31. Literally, of course, it means "birth," but as you also know is the usual Indian word for "caste." Edwin's contention, which made sense to me and appears as such his translation and commentary, was that jāti, along with place (deśa), time (kāla), and current conditions (samaya), were instrumental in determining spiritual practice and the prospects of "spiritual evolution" (an overused term that has always troubled me, and still does). Edwin received a lot of pushback on this, but I think he's right, especially after experiencing continuing gropup karma, including today in the assassination of the Ayatollah in Iran. Jāti, it seemed to Edwin, meant a birth community, such as a caste of brahmins or vaiśyas, as well as Jews, Navajos, Tibetan Buddhists, Australian aborigines, and, indeed, present day Americans, with their shared and eccentric belief in their manifest destiny and exceptionalism. The problem with all spiritual and nationalist groups is their claims of special access to privileged knowledge and (usually) an exclusive claim to a level of consciousness. This, to me ads up to karma, group karma. Edwin , as you also know, has remained a faithful if intellectually questioning ISKCON member since the 1970s, so has his own set of practices and beliefs. ETc. Enough for the moment. BUt I thought I would share a few more words on karma. Om
You’re kind to read and reply, actually I feel honored that you have. Who better understands Vedic ritual than you? And who better qualified to take up the arguments of karma in its storied, complex history? I blow no smoke when I say your Self Possessed has been an incredible resource for me over the years.
I too have taken to Edwin’s reading of Patanjali and as you point out here this reading of jāti—-more like the cohort in which you are born? Something like that. I cannot think there is anything like “spiritual evolution” but for the notion that individuals can become better people over the course of a lifetime of self-reflection and integrity sustained. “Special” or this case “evolved” people eventuates into some kind of authoritarian claim, there are no superior humans—-another facet of the Indian traditions that my own teacher (an Aiyar Tamil brahmin by birth) wholly rejected. There’s just us, humans trying to get to along and when we find out that living with ourselves is the hard part then maybe we become better at living with others.
So interesting! In society, we choose to agree on generally accepted conventions (red means stop, green means go, killing people=bad) in order to get by in life. But morality can be twisted to suit one's own narrative. From the inconsequential "I told my grandma I loved the sweater she knitted me," to the self-serving "not guilty, Your Honor," we can use words to tell un-truths. We can choose actions that harm ourselves or others- either inadvertently or on purpose. We can tell ourselves that we are making war in service of a god or a "divine plan" when in reality we are murdering elementary school children. (Sorry, the news is getting to me today.)
It makes sense that Karma doesn't get ya right away, because otherwise you think we'd have figured it all out by now, yeah? But I want to reject the notion that I have to carry the Karma of my ancestors and my (purported) past lives. It's too much responsibility. It's hard enough managing being a good person in this lifetime.
Thanks for the stimulating read.
So resonant. Thank you!
So helpful and clarifying. Thank you again.
I had to look up “redound”! Our actions return to us. Sat is this existent truth?
Sad I had to miss class today!
Thank you Dr. Brooks ☺️