Sir Richard Sorabji, in the course of memorializing his Aunty, Cornelia, hits upon a 'moral principle' which, he believes would not be accepted by any rational being. It so happens that the doctrine of reincarnation can be expressed as a 'moral principle'- viz. pain you currently suffer arises out of an injury you previously inflicted.
It would be rather remarkable if Sorabji had in truth found some inconsistency within this capaciously baroque doctrine. After all, it was elaborated by some very smart people long before he was born.
Sorabji writes-
These women, who were widows, all believed that it was their fault that they were widows - they must have done something in a previous incarnation which had brought about their husband's death - if they were Hindus. Funnily, their husbands did not think that they had done something in a previous incarnation to bring about their own death - that had not occurred to them!
Funnier yet is the notion that Sorabji has learned this from dead men. Perhaps he holds seances in between writing books about the Stoics.
I find this interesting, as a philosopher, actually, because a lot of philosophers are at work trying to find moral principles that would be accepted by any rational being, but I think if any philosopher read about these women, they would give up the effort, because these women were absolutely rational but it would be no good walking in and telling them, 'Wait a moment, it maybe was not your fault - it might have been your husband's.' They just would not believe that. It is not true that there are moral principles that will appeal to every human being. I am afraid my philosopher colleagues and I are probably wasting our time!
Perhaps Sorabji has indeed been wasting his time- but he entertains us with his stupidity the way philosophers are meant to do.
The death of a husband was certainly a misfortune for a Hindu woman back then. Her life got worse. According to the doctrine of karma, some misdeed of her own in a past life caused this misfortune.
By contrast, death is not known to be a misfortune. It may be the gateway to paradise or a rebirth of a splendid sort. What is certain is that dead people don't whine about how fucking horrible it is to be dead. Thus, nobody can point out to them that it their own fault they are dead. Indeed, save in a seance, the dead are disabled from pronouncing this judgment on themselves.
Of course, karma could work in a sophisticated manner such that two connected parties both suffer a misfortune as a result of quite different past misdeeds dating back to a period when they were wholly unconnected. Indeed, in real life, when one member of a combine is pulled down as a consequence of a misdeed, it may become easier to prosecute the others. Thus, though all go down for their own misdeeds, to some extent, they may feel responsible for each other's fall. It may be that had they themselves been more upright or useful to the commonweal, then the Nemesis of the prosecutor's office may have held its hand.
The Hindu widow who blamed a past-life misdeed of her own for her husband's death would blame you for her suffering if you carelessly tipped your scalding cup of tea onto her. This is because no sacred tie exists between your soul and hers. No great virtue, or accumulated merit, of hers extends a sheltering umbrella over you, nor does the reverse apply. Your fortunes are not joined together, your souls are not yoked, nothing sacred or metaphysical seals you to each other.
It is quite true that it 'would do no good' to tell a Hindu woman that her relationship with her husband was nothing special. She would not blame herself if she heard that the postman or the green-grocer had passed away. Her husband was perhaps more important to her happiness than either of those two worthies, but this represents a mere difference in degree. The fellow is dead. It was probably his own fault. Don't blame yourself dear. Tell you what, why not put on a nice saree and go hunting for a second husband?
The Hindu widow may not kick a person who said such a thing to her, but we might be tempted to do it for her. There is no 'moral principle' that rational people would agree to which would dictate speaking in this fashion to a bereaved woman even if she is some type of ghastly heathen.
This begs the question; is there any 'moral principle' in Sorabji's writing which any reasonable person could assent to? My bet is- no. The man is a moral imbecile. Why? He has pursued a worthless profession. It has made him stupider and more bigoted than he was born to be or needed to be in order to carve out a comparable place for himself in the world.
Karma may be an empirically false doctrine but, from the imperative point of view, it is unexceptionable. Why? It is essentially ontologically dysphoric. It is not at home in this world. Yet, as with the sacrament of marriage, it can enrich our life immeasurably. It can make even the ghastliest hovel on earth into a gemutlich home whose windows open upon a more Orient horizon and which seem to admit a sweeter air. Hinduism- whether or not we sublate the doctrine of karma- is such a home. It remain inviolate in despite of incursions by silly Sorabjis. Still, perhaps, their attentions were better directed elsewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment