by Naresh Jotwani for the Saker Blog
Almost every adult believes that he or she is rational, because he or she can easily cite many simple but important examples of personal rational behaviour in daily life. Selecting one from several packs of cereal in a store, for example, or making sure that a child is properly dressed and equipped to go to school. Any civilized society in the world rests on the foundation of uncountable such acts of rational behaviour.
But, as we well know, no system of reasoning can be built without underlying premises. The underlying premises in the two examples cited here are self-preservation and nurture, both perfectly valid premises in a civilised society. In a society at peace with itself, the underlying premises – “self-evident truths” – are understood, appreciated and not questioned.
In a time of crisis, of course, the premises of a civilised society begin to crack. Neglect, brutality, deception, mistrust and misery reign. An individual is no longer sure about what he or she should believe – and what strange thoughts the next individual may be carrying in his or her head. This leads to insecure individuals forming smaller clans or groups. Such paranoid clans and groups invariably fear and mistrust each other. Two overlapping groups – “politicians” and “scamsters” – are masters at exploiting mistrust, since “not adding to others’ misery” is not a basic premise in their version of rational behaviour.
[An even sicker, sociopathic group has as its premise “adding consciously to others’ misery”; the author prefers to skirt around the consequences of that sick premise!]
It seems clear that a person is defined by the premises – “self-evident truths” – that he or she lives by. A devoted mother, for example, lives by her self-evident truths of preservation and nurture of the family; similarly a soldier, a teacher … and so on. A scamster has no dictum other than “feeding the insatiable self”, although one does hear, at least in romantic fiction, about some who do care for other individuals.
Given that many different variants of “civilised society” exist around the world, a fascinating topic of interest for any reflective mind becomes the “self-evident truths” binding a society together – or, conversely, the absence of “self-evident truths” leading to disunity.
***
Let us consider an example.
A certain gentleman once said: “Suffering is a noble truth”. He meant thereby that this particular truth was existential; it holds in any human society. This truth was clearly “self-evident” to the gentleman himself at the time when he asserted it; but of course we must examine it afresh from our own special vantage point.
The name and other historical antecedents of the gentleman do not concern us at all here, since we are considering only this one utterance as a possible premise. Indeed his name and the antecedents may well throw our logical discussion off track.
That suffering is an existential reality should – one would humbly submit – be evident to all but children and the imbecile. If anything, the variants of suffering around the world have grown rather profusely over the last few centuries, as technology has produced almost incredible means to tamper with human life and the planetary ecosystems.
However, in the specific assertion cited, doubt does arise about the word “noble”. How can suffering be called a “noble” truth, given that we so desperately wish to be rid of it?
However, the very fact that we desperately wish to be rid of suffering should give us pause, since we know from experience that desperation leads to irrational behaviour. Desperation to shake off suffering – somehow, anyhow, find a way! – can therefore diminish one’s ability to remain rational and address the real issue.
We agree that, even in the most civilised of societies, one cannot teach philosophy to a hungry man. At least a simple snack, which should not be beyond reach in a civilised society, should be arranged before the philosophy lecture starts. Otherwise, pangs of hunger will interfere adversely in the rational and wholesome process of learning philosophy.
So then how can suffering of any kind – hunger, pain, stress, jealousy, depression … or whatever else! – be called “noble”? Surely that adjective is out of place here? Indeed, at first glance, suffering seems to be a rather “ignoble” aspect of existential reality. The gentleman who made that statement could have made a mistake, after all.
How do we solve this apparent riddle?
Let us agree that “suffering” is any aspect or element of existential reality that we find painful, or at least very unpleasant. A fundamental question then is this: With what attitude do we face and accept this painful or very unpleasant element of existential reality?
Surely a scowl or howl of disgust will not help us in any way. A calm mind might actually come up with a way to lessen the pain. Might “nobility” in this instance be construed to mean that the unpleasant or painful reality compels us to remain calm – to think of a way to deal with it, to alleviate it? “Nobility” in this case would lie in facing the challenge; and any serious challenge does demand a high degree of nobility in facing up to it.
Indeed, the idea of “paradise”, “promised land” or “shining city on the hill”, arises precisely when an individual fails to recognize and face up to this challenge. Such an individual may dream grandly of a “final victory” over suffering – for his or her clan or group, naturally! – and push ahead on that premise, blind to reality. One may even suggest that much of human history has been shaped by a mistaken understanding of the existential reality of suffering, against which there can be no “final victory”, but only a constant struggle.
If suffering is an existential reality, does it really matter whether or not we dub it as “noble”? Of course not! That word, after all, is only an adjective. Use of that word reflects not upon the reality itself but upon our response to it; adjectives are only in our mind.
Consider the worst crimes committed by humans against other humans. When we say suffering is “noble”, we do not imply that the crimes are not ugly, or that the criminals must not be punished. Of course criminals must be punished, and victims must be helped. But we do imply that the reflective person – the philosopher – must examine the whole scene with a clear eye, avoiding both “pie in the sky” non-solutions and political gimmicks.
We may therefore imagine a vantage point from which the question of suffering can be examined with a cool mind, which requires gaining at least some respite from suffering. A doctor must treat patients with a calm, focussed mind – not with pique or desperation.
***
A discussion about the premises underlying rational behaviour can be compared to two friends sparring at chess. Their aim is not to “win a big prize”, but to explore the various possibilities the game provides to them for creative, logical thinking. While no “prize” is at stake, both players will surely become better at chess as a result of the sparring.
Exactly in that spirit, one can explore the effects on people’s behaviour of the premises they live by – sometimes with happy results, and sometimes with tragic ones.
Two examples:
1. At present, the people and the so-called leaders of a certain “superpower” seem rather at a loss about their fundamental beliefs. Money, sense pleasures and fame seem high on their agenda – but these are the premises one admits to only in private. These must be disguised in fake verbosity, for them to have even a pretence of value. Therefore various self-serving concepts are being tried out, but only to worsen matters. Even those who see themselves as “enlightened” are chasing money, sense pleasures and fame. Insincerity and lack of clarity are running rampant; greed, prejudice and political exigencies are determining actions.
2. In my own country – a large and raucous democracy – debate is intense at present, essentially about which set of premises will determine our political processes in the coming years and decades. Our constitution provides very sound guidelines, but it also comes under the strain of fiercely competing premises. One hopes that our “core values” and democratic processes will eventually resolve matters – in spite of the many so-called “foreign elites” who come hawking their gobbledegook wares.
***
The key point seems to be this. The premises – “core values”, “self-evident truths” – that a society lives by, or fails to live by, determine its path going forward. Often these core values are bruised or buried by political chicanery and bombast, or by economic pressures; even then, however, the longer term evolution of a society is crucially dependent on them.
If there is truth in this conclusion, then another conclusion also follows. What goes by the fashionable name of “ideology” is only a “smoke and mirror” show of verbosity to disguise the true premises of a clever, vociferous, insistent and insatiable group.
Excellent read combining what I reference as belief systems and societal norms. Thanks for posting.
TEP.
“A certain gentleman once said: “Suffering is a noble truth”
Do you mean Aeschyles?
“Praise be to Zeus who wrote this Law in his Sky,
That humankind must learn by suffering”.
If we will learn no other way.
NO! I am afraid I do not know much about Greek literature. I meant someone closer to my home, Gautam Buddha. If a certain observation is true, for all time, then clearly many sincere seekers will arrive at the truth independently.
And it will most likely be a different truth, for each of us has their own different inner truth, which eventually leads to an outer trust, and of course the combination of the two, has always lead to a war coming from different directions.
PS. In the same era that Aeschyles in Greece was pondering on the Noble Truth of suffering, a young prince in India was awakened from a pleasant nap by a huge cry of suffering outside his window. He looked out to see what caused that universal outcry, but all he saw was a solitary old man passing by.
Aeschyles and Gautama were representatives of the Axial Age.
From Wikipedia: “Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, thought to have lived in India from 563 B.C. to 483 B.C.
Axial Age is coined by German philosopher Karl Jaspers in the sense of a “pivotal age”, characterizing the period of ancient history from about the 8th to the 3rd century BC.
During this period, new ways of thinking appeared in Persia, India, China and the Greco-Roman world in religion and philosophy, in a striking parallel development, without any obvious direct cultural contact between all of the participating EurAsian cultures.”
Thank you very much.
However, I do have reservations about the words “without any obvious direct … contact between … cultures”.
In my view, that only means that the nerds and sycophants in our age passing for well-known academics have not discovered how rich and how ancient human cultures have been. In fact I suspect they are mentally incapable of appreciating the true riches of the past — because that requires humility and imagination.
Oops! That was my reply :)
Left out the name and email by mistake.
@Naresh Jotwani. You are right, in ancient times there was far more active contact (both commercial and cultural) between North Africa (Egypt), South Eastern Eurasia (Syria and Iran), South Western Eurasia (Greece and Rome), Central and South Central Eurasia (Iran and Afghanistan), Southern Eurasia (Pakistan and India) and Eastern Eurasia (China).
“The commercial traveller who arrived with a boatload of goods also unloaded a sackful of books”. — The Shape of Ancient Thought
Our modern NorthWest European ignorance on this subject is gradually being dispelled:
“The only thing Hegel knew about China was, that it was. So he said China represented Pure Being.” — Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy.
Interesting, how Buddhism spread Eastward to China and Westward to Syrian Palestine. I remember a “cultural shock” I received from a Japanese with whom we were dining after a scientific meeting, when he told us that some of the principles of Christianity were known in his part of the world hundreds of years before Christ. Later I learnt about Asoka sending Buddhist missionaries from India to Syria, who set up the first monastic communities in Palestine.
Dear Dr Maroudas. It is always a pleasure to connect with you and read your posts. I found great interest in your quotation regarding Hegel. One could take it to mean that Hegel knew little of China. However that may be Bertrand Russell’s limitation. I suggest that in saying “China represented Pure Being” Hegel was actually “earning his spurs” as a philosopher of history.
Hegel’s connection to the widely shared ancient wisdom can be found in his Hermeticism. His Lutheran world view was deeply influenced by his dedication to this tradition of ancient Egyptian esoteric wisdom. In Hermeticism one is introduced to the Egyptian experience of Pure Being. Hegel was a Christian Hermeticist. This gave structural depth to his philosophy and enabled him to recognize the dialectical relations between human groupings as expressions of relations within Being.
Hegel, in saying that China represents Pure Being, is, as always, being dialectical. China culturally embodies Pure Being in relation to peoples that collectively embody a value other than Pure Being. So in Hegel the Christian drive for Reason infuses history with the dialectics of the relation between Pure Being and its denial. This is Christianity’s core narrative, read through Hermetic glasses.
Accordingly history holds its deepest possible meaning for us as the political and cultural expression of this internal relation.
Another great Hermeticist, the psychologist Carl Jung carries forward the same insight. In Jung’s psychoanalysis of civilization we find the West represents the power drive of the rational patriarchal ego. The Roman Empire with all of its neurotic alienation and power illusions still clings to its final last hours. But Jung notes that for the West Russia represents the collective unconscious and the India Tibet China axis represents the Inner Self. (That is the integrity of absolute Pure Being) This Hermetic understanding enriched German culture (Herman Hesse being but one example) This is all found in Jung.
The musician Paul Horn commenting on his world travels said “I have been to many countries including India. China is the most spiritual country in the world.”
So I offer the formulation that the English speaking mind is the bright shining crown of the world mind. The all conquering strength of ego driven intellect. But it now struggles uncomfortably with ever increasing helplessness inside its dialectical contradiction with the foundation of the world mind. That being the Chinese mind.
Which locks us all inside a dialectical dance between Ego (Anglo – Jewish) Mind and the collective unconscious (Russian Soul) all leading to an ultimate encounter between neurotic ego (City of London) and the political manifestation of what Hegel called Pure Being. That is from the Ivory Tower of ego’s (capitalist individualism and imperialism) to its encounter with the collective unconscious (in the red heat of the Russian Revolution) all of which paves the way to the ultimate contradiction. That being between the City of London and Chinese Communist global multipolarity The negative dialectic generated by the Ego drive forces Hegel’s negation of the negation as a political-economic dissolution of the ego into its liberating encounter with Pure Being.
Well the fun part is this is all alive inside Karl Marx. In his 1844 Manuscripts we find Marx continuing Hegel’s Hermetic Christianity. He wrote that “communism is the transcendence of human self estrangement.” That is communism is the shared realization of Pure Being. Well comrade, does this not mean that its political economic manifestation must result in a historically meaningful global collision between the City of London and the living Red Dragon of Chinese Pure Being, all rising up within nourishing embrace of Russian military vitality?
We can begin to speak in this manner because history has not stood still. The West’s opening to the East is now beginning to saturate world culture with its exposure to this seemingly mysterious Pure Being. In the process it becomes both sound Jungian psychology and authentic Christianity to now recognize that “we are all Palestinians.” Socialism has its metaphysical origins in Christianity’s core narrative. To be politically correct in Maoist terms is simply authentic Christianity. However in the 20th Century this was an unconscious red mythology which could not see deeper into itself than through the language of “ideology.” The ideology needed its embrace with authentic Being. Well this is what I call my own foundational precept. Thanks to the clear intellect of Naresh Jotwani. Which is nicely supported by many posts here. How does this sit with you?
Dear Snow Leopard, I always find in your posts something sympathetic to my own way of thinking. Particularly this:
“One could take it [Russell’s witticism] to mean that Hegel knew little of China. However that may be Bertrand Russell’s limitation.”
I agree, Russel was very limited, but that was his intention: “to make of philosophy something hard and clear, like science.” Unfortunately for Russel, science was about to undergo a revolution in which diamond-like hardness and clarity were to disappear into the fuzzy outlines of wave mechanics. The very basis of his mathematical logic was to be undermined by Goedel’s incompleteness theorem.
I respect Hegel more than most Britishers do. Hegel, and Goethe before him, were evolutionists when Charles Darwin was still an infant in nappies. Hegel was the first philosopher (that I know of) who treated Human History as a process of evolution. Then Darwin and Lyell came, and now physicists treat Cosmic History as a process of evolution.
“In my Father’s house are many mansions”. Most of them yet to be filled with life and spirit. The world is very old, very big, very mysterious, we know very, very little. “Humility is endless”. But also, one can exult in “the power and the glory” of creation.
Ahasa is a good principle — try to do no harm.
Yes; exactly. According to my studies Goethe, Hegel and many other German philosophers were influenced by the popular current of Hermeticism that fertilized German spiritual culture in the decades leading up to the Enllghtenment. A central feature of Hermeticism is that the Creator has invested in his/her own Self creation inside Human history. This is the source of the German philosophical concept of evolution unfolding within history. God needs human activism to make God complete inside history. And it fully humanizes itself in Marxism. The British, exemplified by Darwin, killed the living light inside the German concept of evolution and turned in into an empty materialism of chance and random selection.
Nothing to do with real science at all really. Just a pseudo scientific form of bourgeois denial.
Good Day,
Please consider reading “The Greek Buddha” by Christoper I. Beckwith. A non buddhist but one who has studied cultures of central asia northwestern india (Gandhara) and Tibet for most of his adult life.
https://ceus.indiana.edu/people/current-faculty/beckwith-christopher.html
Enjoy.
Dear Sir Jotwani,
I respect the writing process and courage one has to have to put one’s thoughts out there in the wilderness to get shot at a moments notice, therefore I respect you as a person, you have courage.
Regrettably my evaluation would start with the title (ironically that is the question that was not answered) and continue until the last paragraph.
I can not fix it because while each point you bring up, in isolation would be correct, you write using a 2-dimensional writing style for a problem that requires a 3-dimensional approach.
It not what you are saying is wrong on the surface, as it is so much that your framing is off (you are trying to describe highly complex issue(s)) with a 2 dimensional ruler.)
The only help I can offer is you need to be deploying inductive logic not so much deductive.
If it is any comfort, you chose probably the most difficult topic to tackle, as such I can only tell the approach is what is flawed, not the collective aggregate of sentences.
Bostonian, to me what you write sounds like pseudo-intellectual gibberish. To be honest your thoughts are neither two dimensional nor three, but unfortunately uni-dimensional. Funniest thing is that no one, including the author asked for your help or guidance to improve their intellectual comprehension or writing style. Since you have self offered yourself as an expert, I would urge you to 1. Re-write the article in three dimensional thinking so one could understand what you mean or point to such literature written by you as an example.
I think you are new to the Indian philosophy or the Indian way of thinking. Let me give you my opinion, but this must not be taken as an attack on their culture. The Indian or for the matter of fact, most of the east asian cultures do not directly address an issue and try to spin feel good mantras around it.
Take the example of the question, “why do people suffer?”. If you ask an adherent of any Abrahamic religion, he/she would give you one simple reason that the suffering is a test from God. But if you ask Indians, they will tell you that suffering is a result of your bad deeds from your past life. as a result, you are paying for you sins in your current life. This concept leads to the concept of rebirth, where the soul is born again and again, with the form of each birth being decided by your actions in past life. If you did good work, you will be born as a brahmin or any form that guarantees a good life in Indian society, but if you were a sinner, you will be born as a form that suffers in the Indian society, like the low caste sudras. This leads to the concept of varnas (caste system). Then the question arises about how to get out of this rebirth cycle? the answer of indians is to take samadhi, deprivation of food and water that leads to death, which will prevent the soul from being born again in a physical form. Then the question arises about what happens when the rebirth cycle is broken by samadhi? where does the soul go? They answer that it assimilates with a supreme soul of the universe and looses self-consciousness, which engulfs the whole universe. Since the universal soul has presence in the whole universe, everyone has a part of the supreme being’s soul, which creates another problem, since sinners cannot have the soul of god (otherwise it would make god a sinner too). This leads to the concept of atheism, which gautam buddha also practiced. This atheism contradicts with the many gods in the indian religion. This contradiction is resolved by stating that all concepts and religions are true and there are multiple version of truth (as opposed to the abrahamic concept of there being only one absolute truth).
So now you see, there isn’t a final closure to the first question about suffering. You will find such tactics being deployed by many internet gurus, particular one that I remember is a man who goes by the name of sadguru.
Parabellum, Are you an Indian? Most probably not, your understanding of Hinduism is to be honest in-correct, very briefly
1. Suffering happens due to your deeds in THIS life or previous lives (which does result in decided timing of your new birth, which in turn exposes you to specific situations, to complete the lessons one may not have learned in the past life)
2. The path to avoid suffering is through Ahimsa, In Sanskrit himsa is doing harm or causing injury. The “a” placed before the word negates it. Very simply, ahimsa is abstaining from causing hurt or harm. It is gentleness and noninjury, whether physical, mental or emotional. It is good to know that nonviolence speaks only to the most extreme forms of wrongdoing, while ahimsa (which includes not killing) goes much deeper to prohibit the subtle abuse and the simple hurt.
3. Samadhi is a tool for self development and its basic purpose in NOT to prevent re-birth of your soul in physical form. Also Samadhi does not cause your death infact it allow you to live for weeks and at times for months without food/water. Final levels of Samadhi does allow you power to leave your body willingly and at time of your choice. It also allow you the choice to be reborn or not.
4. It is absolutely rubbish that one’s good deeds in previous lives allows one to get a cushy present life. The lessons for each level of higher development can mean one getting closer to principles of Ahimsa and in a way not needing worldly pleasures. Also in Hinduism ‘Brahmin’ is not a birth right but a vocation based on one’s abilities, though this concept got corrupted to caste system over period of time.
5. Your last point about multiple truths is again gibberish. To my understanding the fundamentalists of any religion teach an unrelenting duality based on good and evil, truth and falsehood, man and nature or God and Devil, this creates friends and enemies. This belief is a sacrilege to Hindus because they know that the attitudes which are the by-product are totally dualistic, and for good to triumph over that which is alien or evil, it must kill out that which is considered to be evil.
The Hindu looks at nothing as intrinsically evil. To him the ground is sacred. The sky is sacred. The sun is sacred. His wife is a goddess. Her husband is a god. Their children are devas. Their home is a shrine. Life is a pilgrimage to mukti or liberation from rebirth, which once attained is the end to reincarnation in a physical body. When on a holy pilgrimage, one would not want to hurt anyone along the way, knowing full well the experiences on this path are of one’s own creation, though maybe acted out through others.
@Ajay Raghwa: “Very simply, ahimsa is abstaining from causing hurt or harm.”
I would say that your quote confirms The Shape of Ancient Thought, the movement of ideas back and forth across Eurasia, in this case between India and Greece:
“To do no harm. To cure sometimes, to comfort always” — Hippocrates.
“Suffering happens due to your deeds in THIS life or previous lives”
Take the example of Jesus Christ, who did not sin in his lifetime but was crucified for no fault of his, according to Christianity. If we apply the Indian model of karma, he would have done bad deeds in his previous life only, to deserve such a fate in his life as a messiah.
Condition:
He did not sin in his previous life
Constraint:
Suffering in this life depends upon the deeds in both, the current and the previous life.
Conclusion:
His suffering in his life as a messiah was exclusively a result of his past life’s deeds.
“The path to avoid suffering is through Ahimsa. Very simply, ahimsa is abstaining from causing hurt or harm. It is gentleness and noninjury, whether physical, mental or emotional.”
Then no one can ever escape the cycle of rebirth, because it is virtually impossible to live without causing harm to other living beings. Even those who rely on plant based diet won’t be able to avoid suffering because plants also feel pain.(https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/24473/20191218/a-group-of-scientists-suggest-that-plants-feel-pain.htm)
Condition:
No one can ever escape without harming any other living being.
Constraint:
suffering can be removed through ahimsa.
Conclusion:
Totally giving up everything including food is the only way to attain suffering. This means only samadhi(which includes giving up eating) can relieve one from the cycle of rebirth.
Corollary:
Ironically, this path can cause mental and emotional distress to the close ones of the one who takes samadhi, which is also ahimsa as described by you.
” It is absolutely rubbish that one’s good deeds in previous lives allows one to get a cushy present life.”
Condition:
“Suffering happens due to your deeds in THIS life or previous lives”(your sentence)
Conclusion:
Less bad deeds from past life means less suffering in the present life, which means a relatively good life.
” Also in Hinduism ‘Brahmin’ is not a birth right but a vocation based on one’s abilities, though this concept got corrupted to caste system over period of time.”
Condition:
>”According to the Rigveda, there was a cosmic primal human (Purusha). His body was asked to go through primordial sacrifice so that, men and women, different castes and the world could be created. The Brahmins were believed to have emerged from his mouth, Kshatriyas from his arms, Vaishyas from his thighs and Shudras from his feet”(source: https://www.hindusinfo.com/why-brahmins-in-the-hindu-caste-system-are-considered-sacred/)
>”This system(varna system) was sanctified by two important concepts, which are the linchpin of the Hindu religion (Doniger, 2009). ‘Karma’ implies one’s right and wrong deeds in past lives have determined one’s present caste position and that one should accept the social hierarchy; and ‘Dharma’ (swadharama) is a complex concept that essentially means religious duty and social obligation – basically, individuals should stick to their parents’ caste”.(source: https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-28/july-2015/reaching-out-untouchables)
Conclusion:
If all brahmins were born from the mouth and other castes from other body parts, it means that the system is hereditary.
“Your last point about multiple truths is again gibberish.”
Condition:
In a diverse world, there are multiple truths. Your truth is valid for you. My truth is valid for me. Respect for each other’s truths creates a plural society. This is what India is and aspires to be. It is the essence of Hinduism, despite all challenges.(source: https://devdutt.com/articles/is-hinduism-a-religion-a-myth-or-something-else/)
Conclusion:
It is not gibberish, at least according to those who are well versed in Indian mythology and religion.
“To my understanding the fundamentalists of any religion teach an unrelenting duality based on good and evil, truth and falsehood, man and nature or God and Devil, this creates friends and enemies. This belief is a sacrilege to Hindus because they know that the attitudes which are the by-product are totally dualistic, and for good to triumph over that which is alien or evil, it must kill out that which is considered to be evil.
The Hindu looks at nothing as intrinsically evil.”
Condition:
hindus dont believe in something being intrinsically evil
Conclusion:
Ahimsa is not evil
Corollary:
You sentence,”It is good to know that nonviolence speaks only to the most extreme forms of wrongdoing, while ahimsa” is negated. Since there is no intrinsic evil, himsa cannot be evil.
“To him the ground is sacred.”
This article gives the prevalence of open defecation in India(https://scroll.in/article/964427/94-million-indians-are-at-greater-risk-from-coronavirus-because-of-lack-of-access-to-clean-water)
If the ground is sacred, how can one dirty it?
“His wife is a goddess.”
Domestic violence, a prevalent problem in India, saw an increase during the lockdown imposed to contain the spread of COVID-19 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7945968/).
How can one assault a goddess?
“Her husband is a god.”
This is a problematic argument, because no one can escape bad deeds, it means that a god(in form of an Indian husband) can do bad deeds.
“Their children are devas.”
This wikipedia page gives the practice of female foeticide in India(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_foeticide_in_India).
If children are gods, why are them killed?
“Life is a pilgrimage to mukti or liberation from rebirth, which once attained is the end to reincarnation in a physical body. When on a holy pilgrimage, one would not want to hurt anyone along the way, knowing full well the experiences on this path are of one’s own creation, though maybe acted out through others.”
This sentence of yours is exactly what I was talking about eastern traditions not addressing the issue directly.
Parabellum, Unlike you I am not an expert on Hinduism so I will not participate in lengthy discussion on the subject. I do want to point out that you have an very interesting approach to religion (faith) via rationality. A very brief application of that ” Jesus was born to virgin Mary” according to genetics impossible: Conclusion it never happened, so Christianity is nothing but a fable…
Unlike you I am not an expert on Hinduism
I did not claim that I am an expert of hinduism
I do want to point out that you have an very interesting approach to religion (faith) via rationality
Neither have I claimed that my approach to religion is via rationality. If my comments have made you to conclude that, read them again. All I have done is used one concept of hinduism to negate another. For example, the hindu belief of non-existent intrinsic evil contradicts the concept of good and bad deeds. How else would a hindu decide what is a good deed and what is a bad deed if hinduism doesn’t have a concept of intrinsic evil.
A very brief application of that ” Jesus was born to virgin Mary” according to genetics impossible: Conclusion it never happened, so Christianity is nothing but a fable…
1. It is naturally possible to inherit most of the genes from one parent, there is a name for this condition, it’s called genome-wide uniparental disomy(GWUPD)
(source: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2019/like-father-like-daughter-the-creation-of-children-with-parentally-biased-dna/)
2. Even three parent offsprings are possible artificially
(source: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/mitochondrial-transfer-making-three-parent-babies/)
If it is naturally possible to inherit majority of the genetics from a single parent naturally as well as to create 3 parent babies artificially, it should not be a big problem for God to create a human from another single human, since there is no upper limit to the power of God. The birth of Jesus was a miracle. Miracles, as it’s etymology indicates, are extraordinary occurrences that cannot be explained by limited human knowledge (even normal concepts rely on an unproven reality. Like derivations in mathematics, the language of science, rely heavily on lemmas, which are assumed to be true without any proof)
Coming to the main point, if you can believe that sita in hindu mythology can be born from earth without any parents (source: https://www.sagarworld.com/ramayan/sita-born-from-the-earth-and-returned-to-the-earth), you certainly should not have any problem with accepting that jesus was born from a single mother.
Thank you. This is a very interesting, provocative, thought-provoking summary, but it misses one or two key points. If suffering is an existential reality, it simply CANNOT be erased from the face of the earth by anybody, guru or otherwise. However, it is possible for an individual to become free from suffering, and also help others in that worthy goal. So the final closure is for the individual. No more, no less. To attain this, Gautam Buddha, for example, prescribed the noble eight-fold path. He accepted neither the reality of “god” nor of “soul”.
“In a society at peace with itself, the underlying premises – “self-evident truths” – are understood, appreciated and not questioned.”
This is a profoundly conservative assertion. Can you name me one society – post the first agricultural revolution, beginning around 10,000BC – in which this was the case?
“If suffering is an existential reality, does it really matter whether or not we dub it as “noble?”
This sounds to me like the sort of disingenuous and cynical question a middle-class, middle-aged male from India might pose. It seems to me a “self-evident truth” that there is vast suffering in India that is not existential at all but, rather, cultural, arising from the vicious caste system that operates in that country. Witness the recent atrocious treatment of the lower castes in the national government’s response to the current pandemic.
In my experience, people who are really quite comfortable are often fanatically attached to the idea of certainty and, therefore, their own ideology. They are never happier than when pointing the finger at others.
A reply is not really called for, but — in the interest of keeping the lively thought processes going — why not?
1. Can you name me one society …. in which this was the case? YES. The village in which I live, in western India.
2. Undeniably, many people India do face more than their fare share of suffering; but that does not bar any person in India from trying to understand what is at stake. Frankly, crying ” shame!” makes no difference.
3. Suffering caused by “cultural factors” is also existential — since the many human agents causing suffering to their victims are naturally also included in “existential reality”. That phrase includes everything that exists.
4. The essay does clearly refer to the need for a “constant struggle”, as opposed to the goal of a “final victory”. That struggle is also proceeding in India, and it is wrong to assume that the outcome is already decided, once and for all time.
5. “… pointing fingers at others”: Please do let me know where the finger has accidentally pointed! Maybe I should apologise!
“Please do let me know where the finger has accidentally been pointed!” Since you ask, your claim appears to be that we have a stark choice. Between your self-evident and beyond question “premises”, on the one hand, and ideology practised by the “clever, vociferous, insistent and insatiable group”. This is a false dichotomy. There has never been a society that did not generate ideology, for the simple reason that this is what the human mind has evolved to do, for better or worse. Some ideologies are adaptive and support communal well-being and some are not. Some societies are ideologically flexible (for example, some tribal groups who faced potentially overwhelming incursions by colonial powers) and some are not (for example, the Soviet Union). You seem to be unaware of the ideology flitting about in the shadows beyond the fringe of light cast by the blazing campfire of your “self-evident truths”. So you recline in the comfortable warmth of your little fire and point the finger elsewhere, at others’ ideologies. You apologised, perhaps sincerely. But there is no need, we are simply conversing. Best wishes.
If only this Author had read the “Quran” his confusion about “Core Values” would vanish from the root.
Well, it is not quite so that ‘suffering is a noble truth’.
Of course we can’t see the original Pali language which it is said the Buddha spoke. He referred to ‘The 4 Noble Truths’. The first of which is ‘Life is suffering’. However suffering in English is not the same as the original word “Dukkha”. Which has the sense of ‘unsatisfactoriness’. There are three other noble truths–The cause of suffering, the end of suffering (giving up one’s clinging to, or aversion from objects) and the method.
But for our purposes here, the Buddha also is said to have said (the teaching were passed down orally for several hundred years, so we can’t say with absolute certainty what he said) that the main cause of suffering is not physical suffering, but ‘clinging to views’. People stick to a certain idea of what is true and when ‘Reality’ collides, that’s when the biggest troubles really start.
That is where his teaching really becomes valid today. The West has different ideas, as noted in this excellent article. Their ideas like “Shining City on a Hill’ for example, collide with the fact that the USA is a mess, and no model for any country to follow. Or USA is #1, until China takes over as the top manufacturer and technology leader. The unwarranted pride of the USA becomes a problem. That’s how wars start.
As for rationality. The first sign of ‘enlightenment’ is to realize that one is NOT rational. People are riven by internal conflicts and agendas that are hidden subconsciously even to themselves.
One fellow exclaimed after his first 10 day meditation retreat, when he had to confront all his thoughts consciously was, “I didn’t realize how crazy I am”.
If Biden and company did one or more meditation retreats, they just might slink off to a cave and work out their sh(t before inflicting their unwholesome impulses on the rest of us!
However, generally speaking, introspection is way down on the priority list of most Americans. So the prognosis, absent some real soul searching is not good.
“Dukkha” or “Dukkam” துக்கம் in Tamil means the same. It’s mainly referred to observing grief. It’s probably the same in every other Indic language as well.
Thx for all your thoughtful and instructive comments (except for the PITA TA er Bostonian as we were all young once too and knew more than anybody else obviously)
“However suffering in English is not the same as the original word “Dukkha”.”
Indeed
Suffering in the west is seen in some circles as a positive act of devotion or piety
Western Christianity tends to see the world from the standpoint of necessary ‘noble lies’ as opposed to discovering ‘noble truths’.
Is this reconcilable or am I just too simple (dare I say bias) and ‘twain shall never meet’ as these are two different things?
Noble lies ! That’s it -, with spoonful’s of noble delusiosn to sweeten ; 0
Thanks Naresh Jotwani for your article, well done, looking forward to the next one.
It seems clear that a person is defined by the premises – “self-evident truths” – that he or she lives by.
Many many moons ago, while attending a course, I was introduced to something called ‘lateral thinking’ by a guy who had been taught by Edward de Bono himself. It involved assumptions and premises. He illustrated it by showing us a clip of a scene from Peter Seller’s ‘Pink Panther’ (or he could have shown a scene from every episode of the MacGyver TV series to my mind, post-course). I’ll stick to ‘Panther’:
Clouseau walks into a small hotel lobby and approaches the clerk when he notices a dog near the clerk’s desk.
Clouseau looks at the clerk and the dog and asks, ‘Does yer derg bite?’
‘No’ replies the clerk.
Closeau approaches the desk and immediately the dogs gets up, starts barking and attempts to bite him.
Startled, Closeau quickly backs off.
‘I thought yer said yer derg doesn’t bite’ exclaims Clouseau.
‘That’s not my dog’ replies the clerk.
The lesson about examining my assumptions and premises has remained with me ever since although I confess that it is not always summoned — in fact it seldom is — in my waking hours dealing with life. So thanks to the author for reminding me.
ps.
… a fascinating topic of interest for any reflective mind becomes the “self-evident truths” binding a society together…
And therein lies the rub. Unfortunately at the moment in certain parts of the world where statues are toppled, old wounds are reopened, children are taught that they can change genders, a loud-mouthed teenaged girl is a climate expert and speaks for her cohort, people can survive novichok poisoning, illegal wars are just, etc, the ‘self-evident truths’ are being manufactured by your ‘clever, vociferous, insistent and insatiable group’ and spoon-fed to the society by the media. Sadly, it seems to be working — that particular society, obviously not prone to examining the premises for their beliefs, just gobbles it up. And asks for more.
Sr. Jotwani’s article is very perceptive. Thank you!
The Buddha did not say that suffering is noble. He did say, as you rightly affirm, that suffering (dissatisfaction) is existential. But, if I might advance an opinion, it’s really an experience. Most of us might well go through our entire lives avoiding the reality of suffering and will dodge the matter unless it hits us like a truck. Often it takes the loss of someone near and dear or a confrontation with serious pain and loss as regards ourselves or someone close to us. Then we start to see the ubiquity of this ‘dukkha’. It’s everywhere, humans, other animals, and it was said the very gods as well. As I understand the matter, there actually is a sort of nobility about this because, for what might be the first time, we are face to face with the truth. No more wishful thinking and trying to keep a brave face on the matter. The truth is noble precisely because it’s true. In truth, real truths, there is a certain uprightness. You put the matter this way: ‘nobility lies in facing the challenge’. Again, the Buddha never said that suffering is noble. Some people believe this. They think that suffering is good for the character, makes you a better person, gives you an edge over the pleasure seeking crowd, providing one with a touch of gravitas. This is not what the Buddha said.
Perhaps the premise of the commentator is like someone in the shop choosing cereal, the customer, as the adage goes, is always right. They may not be, that is hardly the point, for it is a question of civil manners, deference, and respect from many.
The style, is all too familiar…
“A discussion about the premises underlying rational behavior can be compared to two friends sparring at chess. Their aim is not to “win a big prize”, but to explore the various possibilities the game provides to them for creative, logical thinking. While no “prize” is at stake, both players will surely become better at chess as a result of the sparring.
Exactly in that spirit, one can explore the effects on people’s behavior of the premises they live by – sometimes with happy results, and sometimes with tragic ones.”
Yes, indeed and we have the best example of this ‘sparring’ in the story of Job who learned what was said to the Jewish people centuries perhaps even millennia later:
“See, I have refined you, though not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another.” (Isaiah 48:10–11)
In the book of Job – Job had three friends and a God and an enemy who explored various possibilities, two hundred and eighty-nine of them, to be exact, bantered about by eight different individuals. Seventy-four of those questions are recorded as having come from God Himself. There was an enormous amount of learning going on there as to the why of his sufferings which finally came to a conclusion and an understanding with the words:
“But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold. My feet have closely followed his steps; I have kept to his way without turning aside. I have not departed from the commands of his lips; I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my daily bread.
But he stands alone, and who can oppose him? He does whatever he pleases. He carries out his decree against me, and many such plans he still has in store. That is why I am terrified before him; when I think of all this, I fear him. God has made my heart faint; the Almighty has terrified me.” (Job 23:10–16)
Accordingly If that statement therefore shouldn’t read “In Suffering there is a noble truth” and for Job it ended with ‘happy results.’ Unfortunately for too many others the results are ‘tragic.’ The dates of 70 AD and 363 AD are more than enough proof of that yes?
“The stones were piled high and ready. Costly wood had been purchased. The necessary metal was at hand. The Jews of Jerusalem were rejoicing. Tomorrow—May 20, 363 A.D.—the rebuilding of the Temple would begin! Suddenly, and without warning, at the third hour of the night… the streets of Jerusalem trembled and buckled, crushing two hundred years of hope in a pile of dust. No longer would there be any possibility of rebuilding the Temple.”