Recently, I wrote about my initial reaction to Wikipedia’s overview of Hinduism, Here. My good friend Jason then posted some excellent comments, particularly regarding my criticism of the religion; and after some consideration, I felt it best to respond with an “Additional Impressions of Hinduism” post. This is great, because it’s a perfect example of how a blog can be useful. It’s a way of tracking one’s processing new ideas and concepts. Criticism is a great way of refining said process and discovering new things about the world around me, so may thanks to Jason. Below are the main points of Jason’s critique which I will address:
1) Why does there have to be the catch-22 that you propose? Why cant it be a win-win? Why can’t right action be for others as well as for-oneself? If one receives a personal benefit from doing something that genuinely helps others, I fail to see how this is a bad thing. One is supposed to act rightly without attachment to the outcome. I do not see how acknowledging that a personal benefit may also be received somehow negates the positive nature of this principle.
2) Further, I do not think that all Hindu’s necessarily believe in re-incarnation, and I would like to talk about Hinduism in terms of what value practice of it’s concepts has on THIS life.
3) There are two quotes from the Bhagavad Gita, that I came across while reading the section (of wikipedia) on Karma Yoga. I feel that after reading about Karma on there, and then reading your criticism, that two different things are being talked about. Do you feel that you have fully understood what Hindu’s are talking about in the concept of Karma, and have you been fair in your criticism?
a. The Gita says: “Therefore, without being attached to the fruits of activities, one should act as a matter of duty, for by working without attachment one attains the Supreme.”
b. And also: “Therefore, O Arjuna, surrendering all your works unto Me, with full knowledge of Me, without desires for profit, with no claims to proprietorship, and free from lethargy, fight.”
First and Foremost, I want to publicly thank Jason for his critique. It is useful and necessary in order to continually form better, more refined opinions and beliefs. Second, I am sorry for the late reply to his comments as I’m sure 1 or 2 of you were wondering about my response. I thought his comments warranted a full post.
In answer to the third point regarding what I read versus what “Kharma” is, I will certainly concede that my understanding of the concept is inadequate. Admittedly, the overview I read of Hinduism may have failed to communicate some things as well as other readings could have. Given the quoted text above, I will wholly admit the concept of “kharma” as communicated to me through my source was incomplete. However, while I will make said concession, I feel that I did understand it as it was communicated in my reading; and I responded to what I read. The problem is that what I read was not good enough. I have noted this in the post itself.
In regard to the first and second proposed points of interest, if the concept is not related to direct gain and is, in fact, more focused on one’s cultivating selfless action in hopes of a higher understanding of himself, the universe, his place in it, or other similar goals, than it may indeed foster good behavior which is not only beneficial to the recipient’s of it but also those who practice it. If one practices belief in “Kharma” in this way, then I will concede that it may, in fact, be a good system of morality. If a man is indeed able to detach himself from the rewards of his good action and live life in a way that benefits others because he believes that is right and he wishes live rightly regardless of outcome to his own “eternal spiritual journey”, then the win-win of the situation is obvious, and I accept that the concept is not only good but excellent.
I make this concession, however, with two points of interest. The first is that my understanding of mankind, not only spiritually but historically, is that mankind as a race is selfish, and that hinders this process from being “ideal” as it is described in the Gita. Like most systems, it may have a favorable and beautiful “ideal”, but said system, when encountered in “reality”, may be very difficult or nearly impossible to practice. This is of course could be said of most religions and is not reason to denounce it. I think that one can have a win-win in the situation if one detaches himself from expectation of reward as the quotes of the Gita suggest; however, if one believe’s in man’s selfish nature is commonly a primary motivator, it makes the “ideal” nearly unattainable.
In fact, I would have to say that in contemporary culture, at least in the west, “Kharma” is almost entirely a bastardization of its original concept. It’s a belief in receiving direct good for doing direct good, and I still think that if one is doing seemingly selfless action for direct selfish gain, that, at a cosmic, level he has received his “reward in full.” The reason I think this is that if a person is doing something “selfless” merely for selfish ends, then the cosmos, which judge such things, would somehow account for his selfishness and nullify any reward of which he believes he is deserving. So the catch-22 I think still holds when one practices the “tainted Kharma” or “perverted Kharma” as seen in Western pop culture—you know, when people do generous things because they think they’re going to get rewarded for it. Now, this is me bringing my own personal sense of “cosmic judgement” into the mix; but seeing as how this is my site, I tend to do that. I’m unsure if this adequately answers the concerns above, but it’s the best answer I have at present.
Based on the quotes of Kharma given above, I see that the belief teaches focus on the betterment of others for betterment’s sake out of duty or strict obedience. The concept in its pure, unbastardized form, is about removing from oneself the desires for direct rewards one can attain in favor of spiritual growth and progress. However, this concept can become problematic if the practitioner is manipulating it for his own personal, selfish, direct gains. Now, given that conclusion, there is a very, very important point I MUST make, and it is this. In any criticism of a concept or idea, one cannot negate the promise or goodness of a concept simply by attacking practitioners who abuse it for their own ends. For example, I cannot rightly dismiss the concept or idea of Kharma here simply because I feel it may be practiced wrongly. I can and certainly have condemned the malpractice and bastardization of it; but that does not have bearing on the original concept itself. That concept seems to be to be good.
However, there is still a flip side to this. At its heart, one could still say that Kharma is ultimately a “self-rewarding program”; for even in the first quote mentioned, “Kharma” is still, about “one’s attainment of the Supreme”. It’s still about doing something for one’s own ends, however noble those ends may be. And if one’s end goal is his or her ever-driving motivator for living, one can still see this as selfish and nullifying. It’s a bit reaching at this point, but it’s still a contention one could make. The first quote above affirms this. The second, however, does seem to be more along the lines of acting without any thought at all and just obeying out of sheer respect. I am unsure if that’s a more admirable calling, to obey without question, but it is certainly different than acting simply to gain something for one’s self.
Now, having said all of that, I think it’s important to note here a specific idea I had whilst dealing with this topic. In fact, this next point is perhaps the hardest spiritual question with which I have had to deal. Jason’s comments clearly showed that True Kharma is not about getting an immediate reward for one’s selflessness; rather, it is a constant pursuit of the high calling of enlightenment and understanding through selflessness without attachment. However, this is still, ultimately, a selfish end. One is still doing good to ultimately end up wherein he or she wants to, at a good place spiritually. It is a NOBLE end, but at its core, still a selfish one.
And, therein lies the rub–a thing I had not considered when last I wrote. I’d be a hypocrite and liar to make a statement like, “A religion that’s all about the betterment of oneself is self-refuting because its false altruism driven by selfishness” without a very important stipulation—one which may be a fundamental problem with NEARLY ALL religions and “Spiritual journey” systems. Arguably, the vast majority of religions at their core are this way. They are practices, systems, relationships, however you want to describe them, all headed toward one’s own goal whether it be enlightenment, eternal life, self-fulfillment, or any other noble end. Ultimately, most, if not all religions are about the individual seeking his her own ends in the distant future for their sacrifices or actions here in the present. If that’s the case, I may have a lot more questioning to do—particularly about my own spirituality as a Christian. Am I following God for God or for me? I guess the REAL QUESTION, the real deal is this:
“If God revealed to me that I would still go to Hell DESPITE doing good or serving Him or seeking Him, would I do it? If there was really NOTHING in it for me, would I sacrifice the uncountable sinful pleasures of the world, if I were to have no resulting positive end?”
That my friends is a question that has kept me up often of late, a question for which I still do not have an answer…It’s a toughy. Maybe as I come to grips with it, I’ll share some thoughts.
Also, while Jason has pointed out that not all Hindus hold to said Kharma in conjunction with reincarnation, I still hold to my prior criticsm to those who do. For those who believe in reincarnation as a system of justice administered by Kharma, the lack of caring for those born to disadvantage is still problematic.
