Literary Discussions

(8-16-99)

Virtue and Happiness

someone wrote:

Many philosophers have tried to prove that God exists. Some of the various proofs became so famous that they were given names. Likewise, with equal vigour many philosophers have challenged these proofs. In 18th century, Kant suggested that the proof of Gods existence was not provable and that some other aspect of reason must be considered as the source of the idea of God. He postulated that the existence of God was the grounds for the necessary connection between virtue and happiness. Subsequently, Kierkegaard suggests three levels of existence for humanity. The first is his "aesthetic stage", the second his "ethical stage" and the third his "religious" stage. He who lives at the "aesthetic stage" grasps enjoyment. Good is whatever is beautiful, satisfying or pleasant. He is a slave to his desires and moods. "Ethical man" tries to live by the law of morals. Whether he acts correctly or not in a given situation is less important than that he has in fact a view of what is ethical and attempts to act "correctly". (Socrates) Kierkegaard's idea of the "religious man", is postulated from the idea that "ethical man" comes to realise that lack of knowledge of situations from an ethical viewpoint will lead him necessarily to making inaccurate ethical choices. This leads to a sense of guilt and the need to leap by an act of faith into a "religious existence" The idea of faith in the connection between virtuous living and happiness seems to be an important motivator for many Christians in making their leap to a "religious existence". I am interested to know to what extent this statement applies to different religious philosophies.

Sitaram's response:

Excellent post!

So many Religions have a quid-pro-quo aspect (something for something). IF you do these good things, and abstain from these bad things, THEN you will receive and enjoy THESE good things, OTHERWISE, you will be deprived of good things and suffer these BAD things.

In Christianity, we see that the soul has a beginning in time: Psalm 139:6 "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them" and Hebrews 9:27 "And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." So he soul is immortal, but not eternal, for it has a beginning in time. And based on the Judgment, the soul is either contemned to everlasting death (the worm that does not die, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth), or it is rewarded with everlasting life ; Isaiah 64:4 "For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him." And 1 Corinthians 2:9 "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."

In Hinduism, we read in the Bhagavad-Gita, Lord Krishna telling Arjuna, "There was never a time when you were not or when I was not. You do not remember your births but I remember all my re-births and incarnations." So, in Hinduism, the soul (jiva, atman) has NO BEGINNING in time, it is a spark from the great Light of Brahman. The soul is truly ETERNAL as opposed to the simple IMMORTALITY of Christianity. But, it seems to me that Hinduism goes beyond the QUID-PRO-QUO mentality. Lord Krishna says in the Gita that He receives all worship, offerings and prayers, even from those ignorant of His true nature. And on the walls of the ancient Temple of Sri Vinkanteshera in Tirupati there is an inscription which says "All offerings everywhere, come to Me." In fact, else where in the Gita, Lord Krsna says "Out of THOUSANDS , hardly ONE seeks me, and out of THOUSANDS WHO DO seek Me, hardly ONE comprehends my true nature. So we see here a concept of God who does not expect all mankind to know Him or understand Him or to have correct doctrinal belief concerning Him. How different this picture of God is from the Old Testament verses in which God says "My name is Jealous", Exodus 34:14 "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."

Our modern physics understands matter as primordial atoms, made of even more primordial sub-atomic particles, whose origin in time is perhaps the first moment of the Big Bang, but otherwise unknown. And these atoms and sub-atomic particles are RECYCLED in a sort of TRANSMIGRATION, as nebulous gas clouds congeal to form suns, and suns cast out streams which become planets, and planets give off material to become moons, and the atoms which yesterday were in an apple tree, are today a part of my bloodstream, and tomorrow will be in a mosquitoes wing. Also, in modern physics, we see great laws of preservation or conservation of matter and energy in the various laws of thermodynamics and in Einstein's equations. And yet, for Jewish, Christian and Islamic theologies, each soul is created once, and never recycled.

I once heard an Islamic theologian say that, since God (Allah) desired to create the world, He must of necessity create it as OTHER than Himself, and since He is PERFECT, therefore, of necessity, the world that He creates must be OTHER, and therefore IMPERFECT. This NECESSITY which God is under must be POWERFUL INDEED, if it can constrain God's actions!

I read another theologian elsewhere (I cant remember where) saying that since God had nothing but Himself, He created the world OUT OF HIMSELF. Now this notion sounds more Hindu. Consciousness IN ANY FORM, whether a humans, a dogs, or a mosquito's is a spark from that CONSCIOUSNESS which is Brahman.

In Isaiah 55:7,8 we read "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his THOUGHTS: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." In this passage, we see God having THOUGHTS (i.e. CONSCIOUSNESS), albeit not at the same level or quality as HUMAN THOUGHTS (CONSCIOUSNESS), but THOUGHTS nonetheless.

Jesus mentions that a sparrow, which is sold for a few cents, cannot fall from the sky, but the Heavenly Father knows. Most westerners envision God somewhere in Heaven with his Supernatural TELESCOPE watching that sparrow fall from heaven. But from the point of view of the Svetasvatara Upanisad (which describes each being as a tree with two birds, one the individual doer, and the other the Paramatman beholder, God), God does not see the sparrow fall from His Heavenly Telescope, from some distant vantage point, BUT FROM INSIDE THE SPARROW, as the INDWELLING Paramatman.

Western theologies (and I consider Islam western, despite the geography of Mecca) consider the material universe as something which God creates as separate from Himself. He winds it up and sets it running, like the Energizer Bunny of Duracell Battery Fame. God gives the material universe a set of immutable laws, and gives creatures free-will, and then stands back to see what happens, intervening only occasionally to suspend those physical laws in the form of a miracle. Some western theologies even posit that God intentionally limits himself and gives up some of His Omniscience and Omnipotence, and sacrifices His Divine Foreknowledge of all future events, in order to make this Energizer Bunny Universe of ours work properly. And, of course, there is ONLY ONE UNIVERSE, which, in parallel with the western concept of the Soul, was created at a point in time, but which IS NOT IMMORTAL. At some point, as we read in Isaiah 34:4 an Revelation g:14 "And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places." Hence, in the Western view, the TIME-SPACE continuum ceases, much like Stephen Hawkings "A Brief History of Time". And at the End of Time, at the End of Space, we read in the Book of Revelation 7:15-17 "Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes." TIME-SPACE ceases, and it is GOD who becomes their LIGHT, their FOOD, their RAIMENT, their SHELTER. And is not this concept in Revelation, of God being the space, light, food and raiment, IS NOT THIS CONCEPT STRANGELY PANTHEISTIC (namely that God IS all things). One of the words in the Torah for God is MAKOM, which means PLACE or SPACE. Hence, the Talmudic saying, "God is the PLACE of the Universe. God is not IN the Universe." In face the Jewish Mystical Kaballah has a notion of Tsim Tsum (or Zim Zum, which means CONTRACTION or WITHDRAWAL). God is such a FULLNESS, COMPLETENESS, PERFECTION, that He must CONTRACT AND WITHDRAW, to make a PLACE (Makom) for the Universe. Strangely, for western minds, the physical, material universe is somehow dirty and defiling, and it is blasphemous to suggest that God IS the Universe, or that the Universe is somehow MADE out of Godstuff. And yet these theologies insist that God is "everywhere present and fillest all things" (as in the ancient Greek prayer 'O Pantaxou paron kai ta Panta pleiron').

Modern Physics and our friend Stephen Hawkings postulates that there are BLACK HOLES, perhaps COUNTLESS NUMBERS OF BLACK HOLES scattered throughout our universe. Some physicists postulate that our very Universe itself is INSIDE a black hole. The notion is that inside each black hole is ANOTHER BIG BANG, another expanding TIME-SPACE Continuum, a Riemann-Space, finite but unbounded. Now Hinduism sees Creation, Preservation, and Destruction as a continuous cycle. This Black Hole notion extends such a notion to a MULTITUDE OF UNIVERSES (Big Bs) all nicely tucked one inside the other, like N-Dimensional Russian Dolls (where each doll has a smaller doll inside). And each "Universe" might be at a different stage of development, each with its Avatars, its Lord Rams battling Ravanna, its Lord Krishna's playing their flutes, its Buddhas awakening and its Christs resurrecting.

Getting back to our QUID PRO QUO observation about western theologies, we may contrast with a story from the Mahabharat (I would love to know the chapter and verse if someone has it please email). There is a King and Queen who are driven into exile from their kingdom and are forced to live in a simple hut in sight of the majestic Himalaya Mountains. The King is a very religious person and always performs his prayers and offerings, in good times and in bad. One day, the Queen emerges from their impoverished hut and sees the King ardently engaged in prayer and worship. She asks him, "Why do you continue to worship God so ardently, seeing that we have been deprived of all our riches, and live in such poverty?" The King points to the majestic Himalaya Mountains in the distance and says, "See how grand, majestic and beautiful the Himalayas are! Do those mountains bear some guilt for our misfortunes? Should I cease to gaze upon them and admire them and praise them, and spite my eyes and my senses to behold them no more, simply because of my misfortune?"

Only a very few actual writings and prayers have come down to us from Lord Chaitanya , the sixteenth century Vaishnav saint. One of those prayers basically says, "O Lord, I do not ask for money, or pleasures, or even liberation from the cycle of birth and death, but only to serve at Your Lotus Feet life after life, even if your foot should crush me." We see that when Lord Ram shot the wicked Balin, who had usurped his brothers throne, Lord Ram had compassion upon him and offered to heal his wound. But Balin replied, "How many lifetimes might come and go without receiving the honor to die at the hand of the Lords' Avatar." So Balin was seeking Union and Moksha, rather that further life and enjoyments.

Christianity has a curious habit of asking other people for their prayers. "Pray for me because I am sick. Pray for my parents. Pray for my son and daughter. Pray for that nation torn by war, plague and famine." Epictetus made an interesting observation in his Discourses. He wrote, "Why do you pray to Jupiter for the safety of your son before he embarks upon a long journey. Why not ask Jupiter for the Equanimity of an Even-Keeled Spirit, to endure whatever good or bad fortune might result." Lord Krishna's, similarly, says to Arjuna, "It is necessary that Joys and Sorrows should enter each persons life, but he who endures them with Equanimity and a balanced spirit is the True Yogin and master of the Self." The Western, quid pro quo notion of prayer is to ask for something. The Hindu notion is that each good and ill that we suffer is our very own doing; a karmic consequence of some thought or action from this life or a previous life. And furthermore, each good and ill that we suffer is for our benefit. King Solomon basically said (if I may paraphrase his writings) : "Every son whom the Lord loves he chastens every one whom He receives, and places their souls in the fire of adversity, until they reach a seven-fold purity like gold in the furnace." There is a sort of impertinence in the notion of asking God to alter our circumstances, if they are for our own benefit and instruction. Such supplicatory prayer is almost a lack of faith in Divine Wisdom, Mercy and Providence and a sort of insult to God. And the insult is compounded when we do not even offer such prayers ourselves but ask others to do it for us. If we had an important favor to ask of a King, and we sent a relative, to ask on our behalf, what would that King thing. It is for a busy King to dispatch a messenger to us, and we are honored by such a visit but it is our place to petition in person, if we are to even petition at all.

The early Greek theologians told a parable about the three types of devotion of believers; the Slave, the Hired Hand, and the true-born Son. The Slave acts out of fear of punishment. The Hired Hand acts from hope of reward. The true-born Son acts neither from fear of punishment nor from hope of reward but from selfless love of the Father. I am somehow reminded at this moment, as I write these words, of Chaitanya's words concerning "the Lord's CAUSELESS MERCY", and that verse in the Gita where Lord Krishna says (paraphrasing), "What my Devotee has achieved, I preserve from birth to birth, and what my Devotee lacks, I supplement and provide through Grace." In the oddest sort of way, we see that God does not create the physical Universe, or sentient beings as His goal. What God CREATES or RE-CREATES, IS GOD. Even a Greek Bishop, St Athanasius, of the early centuries said, "God became man so that Man might become God."

Atheists and Agnostics might speak about man creating God. Theologians might speak about God creating the Universe and mankind. But there is in Hinduism, I suspect, some talk of God CREATING GOD through the perfection of all beings in His Divine Lila or Pass-Times.

(reply from Siddhartha):

Sitaram,

I read through your post. Interesting. I am reminded of an answer I received for my question regarding creation.

This individual pointed me to a fractal video (those cool iterative pictures). He told me look at it, that is Brahman he said, and then he set the fractal into motion, and the movie went into one of the fractals aspects, and he said, that is you, and the movie kept zooming into the aspect and then after a few zooms, the original fractal came at me again.

I thought this to be a nice analogy of Brahman. The Supreme without a beginning in time nor an end. So the person suggested that the question regarding creation is trivial, because one cannot put a finger on where it all began

The human instinct for justice naturally associates the thought of suffering 
and pain with vice and wickedness. 
Suffering is the shadow thrown by the power of evil. Even Kant is inclined to 
look upon God as a sort of "paymaster in chief", working out a compensatory 
system of justice.

For Kant, while Virtue is the supreme good (supremum bonum), it is not the 
complete good (summum bonum. The COMPLETE Good includes Happiness also, as 
well as virtue. 

.......(end of quote)...(my thoughts below)... 

Can we be "good" and also be "happy" in our goodness, our modesty, our 
moderation, our charity, patience and long-suffering? 

Ethical and moral righteousness of behavior is an external, but our happiness 
over such behavior involves an internal transformation. 

There is a curious verse in the bible... "blessed are those who HUNGER AND 
THIRST after righteousness, for they shall be filled". When we first read 
this verse, in our youth, perhaps we imagine some oppressed or persecuted 
people. The "righteousness" they hunger and thirst for is the redress of 
their own grievances, and their deliverance from oppression. 

Lord Krsna in the Gita says 'The self is the best friend (potentially) but 
also (potentially) the worst enemy..." 

Why does that verse say "hunger AND thirst"? Would not one metaphor be 
adequate. 

Food and water are such a deep-seated primordial need. 

When we are older, perhaps we see not the external oppressor and tyrant and 
persecutor, but the INTERNAL tyrant of our own appetites, desire, ego, pride. 

"Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceeds from God". 

"If you drink the water from this well, you will thirst again, but had you 
asked Me, I would give you living waters, and you would thirst no more..." 

"eat this all of you, this is my Body..." 

"drink this all of you, this is my Blood.." 

Certainly a Christian will be pleased to see the importance of eating AND 
drinking as a metaphor of Communion, Eucharist. 

The word Yoga is related to the word yoke, a joining, a union, which is 
similar to "communion". 

Is Christ "happy" in His crucifixion, His suffering? 

Christ speaks of the "travail" of a woman giving birth, but when it is over, 
there is joy over the child which is born, and the pain of travail is 
forgotten. 

The process of "joining" or yoking two entities together, taken to its final 
extreme, is to merge, to become one, to be "non-different". 

In the 4th century, St. Athanasius, a Christian Bishop said "God became man, 
so that man might become God." 

Ahimsa is the highest form of Dharma. 

To become perfect in righteousness, in non-violence, and also to be perfectly 
HAPPY with such a state of being, not grudging or resentful or filled with a 
longing regret; this is the complete good. 

But if we can only achieve one, then to be moral and righteous, and suffering 
is higher than to be happy but unjust. 

To be righteous and suffer is saintly. To be happy and unjust is sinful. To 
be righteous and happy is Divinity.