![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Vedanta?
A friend of mine pointed out a website about Vedanta over our listserv, and while I was going to reply to the list itself... it occurred to me that the reply was far more about what I'm comfortable with and what I'm not than about any feedback I might have as far as her choices for herself. So since this has basically nothing to do with her, I'm going to post it here instead in a space that can be as much about me as I ruddy well please.
It's interesting, definitely. Looks like they're trying really hard to have all the foreigner-friendly bits of Hinduism without actually including all the distinctively-Indian bits. They've done a decent job of this, but it includes a lot of the same social structuring (even without caste)--mainly the whole notion of karma and reincarnation. While it's certainly appealing to think that we can make good things happen for ourselves by doing good things, and while it's even more appealing to think that any good which happens to us is deserved, and just, and otherwise Totally Rightfully Ours... I'm not sure how comfortable I am with it because of the other implications.
Obviously, I don't have to be comfortable with a tradition that isn't mine, and I wanted to state clearly that I'm aware of this. I just think that the notion of karma is more or less entirely there to reinforce inequality. Here's what I mean. On this page: http://www.vedanta.org/wiv/philosophy/karma.html they say:
"Nothing happens to us by the whim of some outside agency: we ourselves are responsible for what life brings us; all of us are reaping the results of our own previous actions in this life or in previous lives."
If all they mean by this is that no divine power is affecting human fates--that only humans are doing this to each other--then I can't really argue. However, if they're arguing that it's a natural law that nothing comes to an INDIVIDUAL person undeserved... then I start to take issue. It means that rich people have all that money because they're better than poor people, that sick people are sick because they lack piety or virtue, and there is no injustice anywhere because justice is cosmically assured.
That's where I'm seeing the cultural trappings here that they haven't gotten rid of. In a cosmology like Hinduism where social inequality is quite explicitly ordained by the gods, they introduced karma to explain why certain people have certain places, and why it's just plain silly to try to be any place other than what you were born into (see Krishna's urgings to Arjuna in the Bhagvad-Gita). You're there because you deserve to be, and so your qualities were arranged in such a way that the place you deserve is the best place for you at the time and everybody stays where they "belong," in their proper place.
So while this is certainly a very cool way to try and universalize Hinduism, I thought their claims to making it effectively no longer an Indian thing are sort of disingenuous--except to the extent that privileged people in all cultures like to believe their privilege is some kind of manifestation of divine justice. Of course, the alternative is to take karma as a very good and very personal reason to take an interest in the fates of others (since alleviating even their justly-earned suffering is still a pretty swell thing to try and do). But any time a religion says, "Everybody is, on some level, exactly where and what they deserve to be to the exact extent that they deserve," is going to throw up red flags for me.
But then, I guess that's why I don't identify as Hindu or Vedanta or really anything close. It just doesn't mesh with what I believe is true about the human experience, so it doesn't fit with me personally. If this makes more sense for my friend than it does for me, I'm glad she found it. I'm just uncertain about their claims that this isn't Indian Hinduism anymore... because to a dalit it would probably sure as hell still look like it.
Holy shit. That was long.
It's interesting, definitely. Looks like they're trying really hard to have all the foreigner-friendly bits of Hinduism without actually including all the distinctively-Indian bits. They've done a decent job of this, but it includes a lot of the same social structuring (even without caste)--mainly the whole notion of karma and reincarnation. While it's certainly appealing to think that we can make good things happen for ourselves by doing good things, and while it's even more appealing to think that any good which happens to us is deserved, and just, and otherwise Totally Rightfully Ours... I'm not sure how comfortable I am with it because of the other implications.
Obviously, I don't have to be comfortable with a tradition that isn't mine, and I wanted to state clearly that I'm aware of this. I just think that the notion of karma is more or less entirely there to reinforce inequality. Here's what I mean. On this page: http://www.vedanta.org/wiv/philosophy/karma.html they say:
"Nothing happens to us by the whim of some outside agency: we ourselves are responsible for what life brings us; all of us are reaping the results of our own previous actions in this life or in previous lives."
If all they mean by this is that no divine power is affecting human fates--that only humans are doing this to each other--then I can't really argue. However, if they're arguing that it's a natural law that nothing comes to an INDIVIDUAL person undeserved... then I start to take issue. It means that rich people have all that money because they're better than poor people, that sick people are sick because they lack piety or virtue, and there is no injustice anywhere because justice is cosmically assured.
That's where I'm seeing the cultural trappings here that they haven't gotten rid of. In a cosmology like Hinduism where social inequality is quite explicitly ordained by the gods, they introduced karma to explain why certain people have certain places, and why it's just plain silly to try to be any place other than what you were born into (see Krishna's urgings to Arjuna in the Bhagvad-Gita). You're there because you deserve to be, and so your qualities were arranged in such a way that the place you deserve is the best place for you at the time and everybody stays where they "belong," in their proper place.
So while this is certainly a very cool way to try and universalize Hinduism, I thought their claims to making it effectively no longer an Indian thing are sort of disingenuous--except to the extent that privileged people in all cultures like to believe their privilege is some kind of manifestation of divine justice. Of course, the alternative is to take karma as a very good and very personal reason to take an interest in the fates of others (since alleviating even their justly-earned suffering is still a pretty swell thing to try and do). But any time a religion says, "Everybody is, on some level, exactly where and what they deserve to be to the exact extent that they deserve," is going to throw up red flags for me.
But then, I guess that's why I don't identify as Hindu or Vedanta or really anything close. It just doesn't mesh with what I believe is true about the human experience, so it doesn't fit with me personally. If this makes more sense for my friend than it does for me, I'm glad she found it. I'm just uncertain about their claims that this isn't Indian Hinduism anymore... because to a dalit it would probably sure as hell still look like it.
Holy shit. That was long.
no subject
In Hinduism, karma is quite literally a cosmic force. It's cause and effect plus a moral arbiter, spanning life after life after life after life. It settles the nasty question of why bad things happen to good people by answering that--on some level, in some life either present or past--they do deserve it, even if they don't seem to. It's that idea that people deserve their "place" which drove a lot of lower-caste Indians away from Hinduism to Buddhism, or later to Islam.
I think Vedanta doesn't go nearly far enough to escape the "good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people" aspect of karma, because I'm not sure we can get rid of the core concept of karma and retain any meaning at all. I think redefining "karma" to mean "habits of thought and feeling" discards the original meaning to such an extent that it's hard to see why "karma" was picked instead of "cheesegrater" or "antenna."
Another ramble from me. I guess the first two sentences would probably have sufficed. >_>
no subject
I also think it's interesting that we didn't read that page the same way. Maybe because I don't have the background in the socio-political aspects of it that you do (I avoid those whenever possible: they tend to be all about power instead of empowerment, and just depress me :) ). I read that as absolutely the total OPPOSITE of 'you are where you belong' and 'you just have to deal'. I treat it as "you have total responsibility for your own life, and you have the option to release your conditioning and make YOUR choices for YOUR life." There's no big horrible influence, whether that be the 'devil' or some power-based interpretation of 'karma' that forces your actions. You always have -choice- to focus on that which is compassionate, loving, inspiring, and courageous -- that which moves towards growth.
And me, I'm all about the 'growth' thing. :)
no subject
I was ranting in a book store once about The Secret, and stopped when a woman nearby snorted a repressed laugh. I commented that I'd better stop ranting in public places or people will think I'm crazy, and she said, "No, no. I was just ranting about this myself last night. On the one hand it's this great message about hope and how you have the power to make good things happen for yourself. But on the other hand, if you get breast cancer or something you suddenly have to feel terrible because you've somehow brought this on yourself."
And that's my problem. I don't find it empowering to say that everybody gets what they deserve, that people can make good things happen for themselves. Because I don't like (or believe, for that matter) what it says about people who don't make it happen.
no subject
Part of why I've personally expressed my philosophy in terms of role-playing. Sometimes, the dice throws are truly random, because no story is good without random events.
And yet, how can we know? Not everyone who is exposed to a virus gets sick. Not everyone who is exposed to a carcinogen gets cancer. Can we really truly say that if a person was completely self-actualized, that they'd never get sick? No, because we live on Planet Earth, not Planet Utopia, and therefore, we have no way of showing what happens to a perfectly self-actualized person, because there ain't no such beast here. :)
However, yes, the last thing you want when someone has a tragedy happen is to tell them "you brought this upon yourself." Which is why I prefer to treat them as random events, whether they are or not.
But again, what isn't random is how you choose to respond to events, even really awful ones. I guess I am enough of an idealist to think that no matter what happens, 'choose love' is always the right answer...