Go East Young Man Jesus said: If those who guide your Being say to you: “Behold the Kingdom is in the heavens,” then the birds of the sky will precede you; if they say to you “it is in the sea”, then the fish will precede you. But the Kingdom is in your centre And is about you. When you Know your Selves then will you be Known, and you will be aware that you are the sons of the Living Father. But if you do not Know yourselves Then you are in poverty And you are the poverty. … Thomas; 3. One of the most important books in my library, in my estimation, is the Bhagavad-Gita. Its central message is the need to do one’s duty, regardless of one’s inclinations. But what is one’s duty? I once attended a practical philosophy workshop which addressed this issue. The answer to the question “how does one know the difference between right and wrong?” is simply that one does know. Everyone knows. In general every human being is born into a society that has, already, a functioning conception of a morality. The child will learn this just as it will learn not to put its hand in a fire. Except, perhaps, in societies in the throes of revolutionary tyranny the morality of a society is self-validating, and this for pragmatic reasons. Just as Wittgenstein describes how the meaning of a word is a function of how it is used in any particular context, the ethical status of any particular action is, at least in part, a function of the socio-cultural context in which it occurs. Epistemology is that aspect of philosophy that deals with the origins of knowledge. How do we know things in general? Is it through the power of our reason, through the information that comes through our senses or through the processing of sense data by human thought processes? In the end of the day we end up with knowledge by some route or other. Epistemology does not deal with the origins of individual instances of knowledge, for example, how do we know whether or not it is raining right now. It deals with the origins of knowledge in general. By the same token individual instances of what is the moral course of action may be problematic. These may involve instances of conflict of interest or differences in cultural norms. And the ethical course of action may not always be the easiest option. But in general any difficulty in knowing the difference between right and wrong stems from self deception rather than any objective difficulties. It is right that one should be honest in one’s dealings with others, that one should pay one’s way. The Gita states that it is one’s duty to work for its own sake, not for the fruits of one’s labour. I find my job quite delightful for many reasons, one of which is that it is a relatively unimportant part of my life. It is an integral part of my life but it is not what I do with my life. To paraphrase Michael Collins, it is the means by which I achieve my goals, it is not the goal itself. Is this attitude at odds with the advice of the Lord Krishna in the Gita? I think not. I have a close friend with academic qualifications far superior to mine, yet her income is only, more or less, comparable to mine. Recently we were in the company of a mutual friend who commented on her impressive qualifications and her rather modest income. Her response was to say: “a career is a job that eats up one’s whole life and, in my experience, only those whose only interest is money do such a thing with their lives”. And in my personal experience wealth purchased in this manner creates a delusion of vast wealth and the, both real and imaginary, power associated with this. And in tandem with this fantasy is the belief, which such people seem to find comforting, that the working classes exist in a state of abject poverty. Those who work for a living will, by definition, live, and do so more authentically, even if highly paid. Compare this state of affairs with the individual who was born a man but died a grocer. Or any other job description. The career person frequently regards his/her all consuming job as akin to an advanced spiritual discipline; the remuneration due more to the ‘status’ associated with the work rather than any payment for services rendered. Every human being in existence has a finite store of material wealth, be it large or small. Every human being in existence has no upper limit to the wealth he can consume, at least in principle. If one were to point to an individual and remark, accurately, that “he does not have enough money” there can be any number of reasons for this. If one were to point to another and say, accurately, “he has enough money” there may be any number of reasons for this state of affairs but there is always one: that he chooses this state of affairs. This is never the only reason but it is always one of the reasons. “The philosopher is the happiest of men”, says Plato, using Socrates as his mouthpiece in The Republic. The Republic is a seminal work in the evolution of western thought. It argues that justice has the practical, and not just the moral, advantage over injustice. The unjust individual is not more free by not being bound by the restraints of justice. Rather he is a slave to his unrestrained appetites and passions. The just man, personified by the philosopher ruler of the mythical city Kallipolis, is genuinely free as his appetites and passions are appropriately controlled by his faculty of reason. This happy state is contrasted with the superficially similar tyrant who lives in a hell of his own making, surrounded by sycophants and fearful yes-men. Justice, thus defined, is its own reward and injustice its own punishment. While Plato speculates about dire consequences for such evil in an afterlife and great blessings for the just person these musings are only an afterthought, a footnote to the book. There is an impressive body of ‘hard’ scientific evidence involving such things as the study of brain chemistry that point to the fact that the spiritual masters of the eastern hemisphere enjoy a subjective experience of immense happiness and well being. On the other hand in the west the idea of ‘Heaven on Earth’ frequently revolves around the idea of immense wealth; the ‘huge’ lottery win. Any Joe Bloggs when surrounded by a vast array of expensive objects, and the ability to buy much more of the same, is often thought to be in Heaven. Either no reference is made to his subjective mental or emotional states or the delight associated with the possession of these material objects and the power to bully others which goes with such wealth, it seems, produces the desired effect. “If the hard road gets you where you want to go and the easy one doesn’t, which road do you take? …….” A wise man once asked. Brendan Burke MA (Phil) Cork 20th July 2007. Cover