I have been contemplating again (albeit not yet re-reading) the highly suggestive series of World War I lectures by Rudolf Steiner entitled The Karma of Untruthfulness - which might be translated as "the spiritual consequences of truth-indifference".
One of Steiner's core ideas is that the Great War was a direct consequence (i.e. "karmic" outcome) of the preceding decades of "untruthfulness" - untruthfulness being a highly-useful term that encompasses deliberate misrepresentaions, distortion, cover-ups, and all forms of ignoring realities; as well as outright lies.
Well, I suppose that there has never been a time in history when there have been so many, such large Untruthfulnesses, so widely believed as Now. And by Steiner's understanding (and my own) this must and shall have very large and negative "karmic" consequences - at every level at which untruthfulness is propagated and believed: from the global and national, down to institutional and individual.
This is inescapable. Untruthfulness has been built-into so many civilizations, societies, institutions and lives; that its consequences are unavoidable; and are-being, will-be encountered for considerable time to come.
What this means - initially for each of us as individuals, but also for every form of organization, corporation, bureaucracy - is that the quest for truth; leading toward explicit repentance based-on understanding of untruthfulness; ought to be a primary and core activity of every life.
No matter how 'truthful' you currently regard yourself (e.g. by comparison with 'other people'); there is A Lot of work for you to do!
In doing the work of truth, we not only benefit our-selves (spiritually), but (because right-thinking is a kind of power) we benefit every-body, and every-thing, else.
8 comments:
Isn't the karmic repercussions of truth-indifference built in also to our use of voluntary financial products?
For instance basically all the people I know who are critical of the Covid jab, critical of globalisation, critical of AI and some of whom are devout Christians, have voluntary financial products such as private pensions and investments in funds which means they directly financially gain from the very thing they decry. Even worse, they are proxy owners of the very companies that are pushing these.
Probably the majority of Christians in this country (and their churches' investments) are in this situation.
I know it's impossible to get away from this completely but there is such thing as proximity to evil. And gaining interest in your bank account even perhaps involuntarily wished for is different from being a voluntary proxy owner of pharmaceutical companies and AI pushing companies.
Again people decry AI but their private pensions are betting on that horse to win for their proxy owned shares in companies.
The only people I know who opt out of Britain's now compulsory private pension enrollment are a sizeable percentage of blue collar workers who would rather a bird in the hand than two in the bush. But unbeknownst to them their attitudes are keeping them from a proximity to evil of being such proxy owners which means, in my eyes, they do get to complain about it rather than a faithful Christian with voluntary shares in an investment fund.
The spiritual consequences of truth-indifference with regards to voluntary financial products means the farce of Christians and their churches who may pray for the conversion of England, whilst they are financially hoping to gain from it's desacralisation.
I see there's a possibility that the democratisation of ownership via public limited companies opened up a new possibility of extensive culpability to evil. One voluntarily becomes an owner or a proxy-owner with the illusion of not having any responsibility or culpability for what you voluntarily own, and whose sole influence on the company one owns is to drive that company to reap greater profits and to increase the share price.
@Luke - I feel that there is something misguided about the attempt to shield oneself from a purposively and endemically evil System, by 'boycotting' particular strands of the web of corruption.
For myself, I think the important thing is not to try and avoid or isolate oneself from the corruption, so much as to be aware of, acknowledge and repent the corruption; and - in a sense - to prepare oneself spiritually for the fact that the System cannot be unraveled and re-woven, but must and should "all come down" at some point.
To use the 'karmic' language; it seems to me that the kind of evil you describe is karmic mainly at the societal level, and will have its inevitable effects in terms of social consequences - rather than being a matter focused on individuals. Of course, the individual and the social are not separable, but what we are seeking now socially is a consequence of the rejection of God, creation, the world of spirit etc, that happened decisively in the twentieth century - in all "western" nations (and most others).
Thanks. I agree one can't extricate oneself from the web of corruption but I do think there are degrees of proximity to evil and I see being the owner of something as having a high degree of responsibility, even the ultimate responsibility, even nearly something of a spiritual responsibility. Who else has responsibility if not the owner?
I don't see how it's possible to repent from what one discerns is one's high proximity to culpability to evil and then intend to carry on doing the same thing. One can't, it wouldn't be repentance.
I believe one can do this with actions that are lower in proximity to a culpability with evil, and where there is a particular good you can do despite the persistent lower connection to something evil, and what should be considered is the degree of effort needed to extricate oneself from a high proximity. I don't see voluntarily chosen financial products where one is the owner or proxy owner of companies as fitting this bill.
@Luke "I don't see how it's possible to repent from what one discerns is one's high proximity to culpability to evil and then intend to carry on doing the same thing. One can't, it wouldn't be repentance."
You need to think this through, because it cannot possibly be true. For a start, it is a gross underestimate of the degree to which we all sin, all of the time.
(I found it helpful to consider the situation of a Christian slave of an evil master, who is compelled to commit all kinds of sins - or else to die. If you believe that a Man can be a slave and a Christian, then repentance cannot be about ceasing to commit any particular sin.)
If repentance meant ceasing to sin, then nobody has ever repented; because even the greatest saints recognized that they were sinners unable to cease - they sometimes said they were themselves the greatest of sinners. I understand this to mean that - exactly because they were saints - they could most fully appreciate the immense degree to which all Men depart from the path of Goodness.
Sin is the human condition - in this mortal life; which is exactly why Jesus Christ was necessary.
Jesus came to save sinners, is the saying; which means that repentance is not about us ceasing to sin but about recognizing that we do sin, and affirming that we would reject all sin - if we could. But we can only do this at resurrection, and by following Jesus.
My understanding is that there are two kinds of cooperation with evil, formal and material, and that the difference is based on intent. When I invest in a SP500 fund, my main intentions are that the companies use the money to benefit the community (and make a profit in doing so), and that the diversification helps protect my savings from inflation and other risks so I can support my family. I understand that some of the companies in the fund may do things that hurt the community, or that the fund owners might vote the shares in ways that lead to harm, but since that wasn't my intent I think that's material cooperation with evil, and not necessarily a grievous sin. Is this accurate? Thank you for your comments.
@hdv - Well, that was Not a point I was making.
My point was not about trying to *minimize* the degree of economic complicity in evil, but instead to clarify that in this totalitarian world ruled by evil leaders, we are all unavoidably deeply complicit in The System.
(Unavoidably unless we accept death, at any rate.)
But also I wanted to clarify that this is just an amplification of the human condition. In absolute terms; Christianity starts-from a recognition that we are all unavoidably sinners - that is, we all fail to be aligned-fully with Gods will, with God's intentions and methods of creation. Yet, it was on exactly this basis that Jesus offered salvation.
Christians will want to sin less, and we may (or may not - depending on our character and circumstances ) be able to sin a bit less; but can never cease entirely and indeed (if we understand sin) we will be sinning every hour of every day.
Salvation is Not conditional upon us ceasing to sin, nor even upon leading a less-sinful life than average - or else it would be hopeless for many people.
I think it is clear (especially in the Fourth Gospel - "John" - that what is needed is to want to follow Jesus through salvation to Heaven, and to be prepared to leave-behind all sin - in other words, to agree to be transformed such that we can become permanently and irrevocably aligned to God's will.
We need to understand that non/ anti-Christians may be overall kinder, more sociable, more law abiding, less criminal than many specific Christians, or even than Christians in general. In terms of salvation, this doesn't matter either way. Non/ anti-Christians do not desire salvation; so their 'good works' make no difference of themselves.
(*Except* insofar as good or bad works lead towards - or away from - the desire to follow Jesus; which is a variable thing; because *sometimes* doing a sin leads to recognition of that sin, and the desire for salvation. The point is that doing, or not doing, sins are contingent matters; whereas the love of Jesus, the desire to follow him and for resurrection... these are absolutes.)
But the intention to avoid sin in the future or 'the firm purpose of amendment' was regarded by the greatest saints as necessary for repentance?
'I found it helpful to consider the situation of a Christian slave of an evil master, who is compelled to commit all kinds of sins - or else to die.' But many of the greatest saints did prefer death than to sin and are held up as examples.
'If you believe that a Man can be a slave and a Christian, then repentance cannot be about ceasing to commit any particular sin.' How is this so, a man who is a slave and a Christian isn't sinning by being a slave?
'Jesus came to save sinners, is the saying; which means that repentance is not about us ceasing to sin but about recognizing that we do sin, and affirming that we would reject all sin - if we could. But we can only do this at resurrection, and by following Jesus.'
But can't we still affirm that we intend not to commit a sin even if we know sin is the condition of mortal life and there is some likelihood although not a certainty we will commit that sin again in the future?
@Luke - Rather than disputing what you think I am saying, maybe it would be better for you first to understand my argument, then think it through for yourself.
Post a Comment