The chapter begins with Baggini reciting an experience from when he visited Bodh Gaya, one of the poorest cities in India. He focuses on how dirty and poor the city is and how he was displeased to see that many of the stereotypes of the urban quality of life in India were fairly accurate to his direct observations of this city. He references statistics that portray a rising middle class in India but claims that this rising middle class is not evident from his observations. The city is filled with posters that advertise schools that emphasize job preparation for citizens. He claims that the fact that these posters are so abundant contradicts the idea that the Indian population enjoy living simple lives without materialistic values. He connects this anecdotal encounter with his analysis of the modern day eastern interpretation of Karma.
The principle of karma has been traced back to the 5th century BCE and it was originally an idea pertaining to Brahminical tradition. Karma referred to the importance of making sure that rituals were carried out correctly to ensure that they were effective. This is notably different to how most people perceive karma today. Over time, the concept of karma developed into different ideas throughout different Indian schools of thought such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. While each of these religions have a unique interpretation of karma, it is generally agreed that karma represents the principle that all actions have moral consequences. This principle is the fundamental element of all Indian philosophy. One aspect of the Buddhist iteration of Karma is that Karma applies to thought, not just actions. Intentions and mental and spiritual purity matter more than deeds. Another important element of Karma is the nature of one’s rebirth. Ancient Hindu texts such as The Laws of Manu reveal that committing sinful acts can affect one’s social status in their next life. Karma gives a higher value and consequence to actions and thoughts because it functions across lifetimes.
Baggini says that the popular perception of karma that exists in India today is a very different concept. He quotes Indian philosopher Meera Baindur, who describes modern Karma as a “watered down” version. Modern Karma puts emphasis on the external mechanisms of the world rather than people’s own individual choices and motivations. Baindur makes the claim that Indian people are more likely to blame the government or other external circumstances instead of their own actions. She addresses the increasing issue of farmer suicides in India by saying,
“The reason farmers are killing themselves is not because their crops are not growing, it’s because they can’t repay the loan they have taken because the seeds that they’ve bought are GM seeds that they can’t regrow. It’s not about your Karma, it’s about economics.”
One of the most harmful effects of the modern, popular meaning of Karma in India is the way that it has been used to support the rigid caste system. The caste system can be traced back to the Vedas, a set of ancient hindu texts that describe four different varnas, which basically means social rank. While there are technically only four, there is a non-official fifth class labeled the dalit, or untouchables. While the Vedas advocate strict separation of castes, it is commonly understood that movement between the different social classes was possible and that merit should be the ultimate determining factor in the caste system rather than birth. Discrimination based off of the caste system was made illegal in 1947, when India gained independence from the U.K. However, the caste system still has a strong systemic hold on Indian society today. Indian news outlets are separated by caste, and many Indians end up marrying within their own class. Baindur believes that a large factor in this is that the modern Indian ideology promotes a level of fatalism, or determinism within the acceptance of karma. But Baindur does see a change of things in the modern day, one that she does not see as beneficial. She says that people are starting to want a change for the better, but it is not coming from an internal drive. It is being generated. People are being told to buy things, and she believes this is bringing more dissatisfaction.
Baggini ends the chapter by reciting a story in which he was still in Bodh Gaya. His hunger and unhappiness had drawn him to the only western style cafe in the city. He recalls the other customers in the restaurant: four Buddhist monks, an Asian woman, and a young Japanese man; all of whom were eating traditional western style food. His final remark of the chapter is that perhaps the Eastern value of Karma can coexist with western ideas in a non-fatalistic way.
The world is chuck full of ideas, beliefs, and faiths, and while there is no way to determine which are the most "correct" (if that's even applicable), it definitely seems that a general understanding of the worldwide ideologies and religions is very beneficial knowledge. It's also important to note that many of these ideas do not contradict each other at all. Some are even similar. Whilst Christians do not believe in Karma, they do believe that God enacts moral consequences to human actions through justice and mercy. This is essentially a version of Karma plus a God and minus reincarnation. Often times, philosophies rooted in places far away from us can seem like distant ideas when in reality, they are fundamentally similar in many cases. Understanding the way that the world thinks is vital knowledge, and more general awareness of global philosophy in a society can massively benefit the integrity of an entire civilization.
Here is a speech from Meera Baindur. Speech starts at 2:47.
Thanks for abbreviating the post and linking to the full version, from now on I'll suggest that everyone do that. Makes for a cleaner page.
ReplyDelete"philosophies rooted in places far away from us can seem like distant ideas when in reality, they are fundamentally similar" - Indeed. What unites us really does outweigh what divides us... if only we can see it.