Vortex
Member
I recently made a good post on the old forum concerning the topic of morality-spirituality relationship. To be more precise, it was about reincarnation research and apparent lack of any "karma" shown by the evidence.
I think I can re-post it here - it would be revelant for this discussion (if it is not good to post something both on the old forum AND here, please let me know!)...
Well, I do not believe in any form of "divine judgement" - and the actual evidence from parapsychology, transpersonal psychology and near-death studies seems to confirm my disbelief. Whether we like it or not, we apparently live in an "amoral" universe; all notions of "good" and "evil" are man-made, and, therefore, relative, subjective and contestable. No Absolute Cosmic Laws to follow.
I'm afraid that some moral realists will start to criticise my moral anti-realism in usual ways - e.g., "without objective moral laws, anything goes". Well, not really...
First, the consquences of our actions do not stop with death, but persist after it. To quote the article:
Second, the consequences of our actions are not limited by sphere of the personal (and interpersonal), but affect world-in-large. Even the most minor action contributes to the global state of events, and ultimately influences the whole mankind - maybe, even some non-human realms and entities. Such influence may be very small, almost invisible - but it still adds to the whole pull. Robert Anton Wilson brilliantly described the principle in his "Cosmic Trigger", in the chapter "A lesson in Karma":
As we know, people who had transformative spiritual experiences tend to become much more compassionate and humane than they were; but such increase in compassion appear to be "non-moral" in nature; after all, experiencers often describe being "beyond good and evil".
I suppose, the higher compassion are just the result of higher conscious lucidity and the higher intellectual efficacy (including social and emotional intellectual efficacy) which is achieved by spiritual experiences. Cruelty and violence and not "evil" in the absolute sense - they are just plain stupid and, on long-term, counter-productive; and they require non-empathy (e.g., the severe mental and emotional separation) towards victims. The former is obvious to the highly socially and emotionally intelligent person; the latter is impossible for the fully-conscious, hyper-lucid person. It does not require following any rigid "moral code". It is simply natural.
I think I can re-post it here - it would be revelant for this discussion (if it is not good to post something both on the old forum AND here, please let me know!)...
Well, I do not believe in any form of "divine judgement" - and the actual evidence from parapsychology, transpersonal psychology and near-death studies seems to confirm my disbelief. Whether we like it or not, we apparently live in an "amoral" universe; all notions of "good" and "evil" are man-made, and, therefore, relative, subjective and contestable. No Absolute Cosmic Laws to follow.
I'm afraid that some moral realists will start to criticise my moral anti-realism in usual ways - e.g., "without objective moral laws, anything goes". Well, not really...
First, the consquences of our actions do not stop with death, but persist after it. To quote the article:
Stevenson, an expert on psychosomatic medicine, suspected strong emotions are (somehow) related to a child’s retention of past-life memories. Traumatic deaths, he thought, leave an emotional imprint. Indeed, most of the children he studied claimed that they had met a violent end previously. There was also a gap of a few years between lives; reincarnation is never immediate. And for the most part, souls seemed to stay local. That’s to say, the “previous personality” often lived in a distant village, but not quite so far away as to require a passport. Oftentimes, Stevenson observed, the child had habits and fears linked to the nature of death. Those who said they’d drowned in a previous life had an unusually intense fear of water; those who were stabbed displayed a crippling knife phobia, and so on. There were even three cases of children who’d reacted violently when they’d unexpectedly crossed paths with their own “murderers”. It’s bizarre to picture preschoolers lunging for the throats of adult strangers. Nonetheless, it made sense to Stevenson, since in his view, the children were attacking those who’d gotten away with their murders.
Second, the consequences of our actions are not limited by sphere of the personal (and interpersonal), but affect world-in-large. Even the most minor action contributes to the global state of events, and ultimately influences the whole mankind - maybe, even some non-human realms and entities. Such influence may be very small, almost invisible - but it still adds to the whole pull. Robert Anton Wilson brilliantly described the principle in his "Cosmic Trigger", in the chapter "A lesson in Karma":
Karma, in the original Buddhist scriptures, is a blind machine;
in fact, it is functionally identical with the scientific
concept of natural law. Sentimental ethical ideas about justice
being built into the machine, so that those who do evil in one
life are punished for it in another life, were added later by
theologians reasoning from their own moralistic prejudices.
Buddha simply indicated that all the cruelties and injustices
of the past are still active: their effects are always being felt.
Similarly, he explained, all the good of the past, all the kindness
and patience and love of decent people is also still being
felt.
Since most humans are still controlled by fairly robotic
reflexes, the bad energy of the past far outweighs the good,
and the tendency of the wheel is to keep moving in the same
terrible direction, violence breeding more violence, hatred
breeding more hatred, war breeding more war. The only way
to "stop the wheel" is to stop it inside yourself, by giving up
bad energy and concentrating on the positive. This is by no
means easy, but once you understand what Gurdjieff called
"the horror of our situation," you have no choice but to try,
and to keep on trying.
As we know, people who had transformative spiritual experiences tend to become much more compassionate and humane than they were; but such increase in compassion appear to be "non-moral" in nature; after all, experiencers often describe being "beyond good and evil".
I suppose, the higher compassion are just the result of higher conscious lucidity and the higher intellectual efficacy (including social and emotional intellectual efficacy) which is achieved by spiritual experiences. Cruelty and violence and not "evil" in the absolute sense - they are just plain stupid and, on long-term, counter-productive; and they require non-empathy (e.g., the severe mental and emotional separation) towards victims. The former is obvious to the highly socially and emotionally intelligent person; the latter is impossible for the fully-conscious, hyper-lucid person. It does not require following any rigid "moral code". It is simply natural.