Materialism is an Identity Crisis

Materialism: a Dead End

Time and space cannot be known. We may find out enough information about our environment to manipulate the phenomenological world, but matter itself will remain a mystery forever. We compound the error by denying the existence of consciousness. Ironically, while the knowledge of matter eludes us, we can know consciousness intimately, for that is who we are.

The obsession with the study of matter is a dead end. Materialism may offer the key to happiness, but in the end it is a false door, leading nowhere. Those who have the misfortune to spend their life in materialistic pursuit have only death as a reward.

Material happiness is an illusion that can never be achieved. How much money is enough? Sexual pleasure would seem to be the greatest happiness, but the logical end of sexual pleasure is sexual reproduction and children may be a joy or a burden. Sex is not an end in itself. Sex for the sake of sexual pleasure cannot lead to happiness, for physical pleasure and happiness are not the same thing.

False Morality and Physical Pleasure

Physical pleasure is just the counterpart to physical pain. In the end, life is temporary and the power of physical pleasure wanes in old age. Infirmity, old age and death are inevitable and cannot be counteracted through the pursuit of physical pleasure. Therefore, material happiness is an illusion. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When material pleasure is pursued to the exclusion of other values, exploitation is inevitable. Exploitation has consequences.The Upanishadic law of karma cannot be overcome through materialistic sense pleasure. Even after death the consequences of action will continue.

Materialists deny the law of karma. For materialists the afterlife does not exist. If consciousness does not exist and there is no after-life, then morality is unnecessary.

Kant and Jaimini: God as Judge

After setting up a rational quarantine that excludes any discussion of God or spirit from the realm of reason Immanuel Kant realized that he had created a great moral hazard. Since he had issued a death certificate for God, morality was also dead.

Kant wanted to resurrect a feebler version of God for the purpose of propping up morality. And so, the agnostic philsopher devised an argument from morality based on practical reason. He argued that since the goal of humanity is to achieve perfect happiness and virtue an afterlife must exist in order for this to be possible. God must therefore exist to provide us with the rewards of morality. Kant’s agnostic materialism includes God as an afterthought, to provide us with the fruits of karmic action. This resembles the ancient Hindu version of Jaimini’s Karma-mimamsa or “Apurva” philosophy.

Bhaktivinoda's version

In his Tattva-Viveka, Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains the parallels and contrasts between the materialistic karmic philosophy of Jaimini and the moral philosophy of Kant. He explains that “Jaimini knew well that belief in God naturally stays in the hearts of human beings. Therefore in his apūrva philosophy he carefully and cunningly crafted an imaginary God who bestows the results of actions. Thus concealed under the cloak of belief in God, the atheistic karma-mīmāṁsā philosophy preached by the smārta-paṇditas has a strong following in India. One person's self interest often conflicts with another person's self interest.”

Bhaktivinoda continues, explaining that when a person of average intelligence hears the word unselfishness, he becomes attracted, for he thinks that by following the philosophy of unselfishness his own desires will be fulfilled. That is another reason the philosophy of atheistic materialism has become widespread...The atheist smārta-paṇditas in India accept the worship of God only to promote their atheist philosophy. If sometimes they accept the ideas if an afterlife and of a God who gives the results of actions, they accept these two ideas only a subordinate parts of their karma philosophy.

True devotion (bhakti) to God is never seen in such karmic philosophy. The philosophers known that in any agnostic moral system there will be corruption: unselfishness gradually turns into selfishness. Western philosophers like Kant and Hindu “karma” philosophers like Jaimini invent a kind of “God” exclusively to enforce the law of karma. They accept the existence of a single all- knowing God who gives the results of actions. Bhaktivinoda explains that these philosophers promote a conception of God merely to assure that good morality is rewarded and bad morality will be punished. They then quote many passages from scripture to show how the worship of God is a part of the karma-mīmāṁsā philosophy. In this way they accept an imaginary God. Kant, fearing that his moral imperative might not be taken seriously, imagined a God that would be considered real for the purpose of rewarding virtue and punishing vice and that God must exist to enforce the rule of law. Kant was more intellectually honest than Jaimini. And yet Kant's “moral philosophy” is a weak argument that never really convinced anyone.

His idea of the imaginary worship of God for moral purposes never attracted many followers. Since he was essentially agnostic, he didn’t really insist. His moral argument defending the existence of God didn’t convince many philosophers.

Jaimini, on the other hand, had a deeper understanding of human psychology. He was more farsighted than Kant in insisting on a God who would fulfill the laws of karma and therefore his karma-mīmāṁsā philosophy gained wide acceptance in the smārta-paṇdita community. In the end Kant and Jaimini held the same philosophy, the idea that an imaginary God is useful for enforcing morality and for rewarding “good karma.”

A close examination will reveal that neither the “moral imperative” of Kant or the karma-mīmāṁsā philosophy of Jaimini is tenable because they avoid a deeper understanding of conscious reality, the eternal nature of the self and God. Thus they are not in a position to bring true auspiciousness to human society.

Kant’s moral imperative is not sufficient for self-realization. Logical Positivism aims at auspiciousness for human society, but falls short, since it avoids fulfilling our true self-interest. A system of materialism that ignores spiritual reality can never satisfy our inner demand. In the same way, Jaimini’s ancient system of good karma, called karma-mīmāṁsā has no power to uproot sins.

All these external attempts at morality or “good karma” are doomed to fail, since they are not sincere. Good karma and bad karma are external to the problem of self-realization. With good karma we may be promoted to a higher position in the world of birth and death. And with bad karma we may be punished within the world of birth and death.

Conditioned life in the world of birth and death is often compared to imprisonment. It is not wise for a prisoner to think only of improving his condition. If a prisoner thinks, "I am in this cell—let me request the warden to change my cell, and I will be happy," that is a mistaken idea. One cannot be happy so long as he is within the prison walls. Our aim should be to become free from the "isms" that keep us conditioned, to become completely free from the "ism" of materialism.

True “good karma” is found only in devotional service to God. As long as karma continues to call itself good karma it is not a part of devotional service, since it invokes God only to enforce the results of karma. A true relationship with divinity cannot be earned through the merits of good works, but through mercy, through surrender, through divine love. When it is truly a part of devotional service, karma calls itself by the name bhakti.

Good karma or bad karma are both components of materialism. As long as it calls itself by the name karma karma is a rival of devotional service and it always tries to make itself more important than devotional service. Morality or good karma makes the claim that it helps philosophy, civilization, and art. but this is true only when transformed into bhakti.

Materialist morality is external to the true interest of the human soul. Since space and time cannot be known through materialism, we must go deeper.

Kant and other philosophers try to establish a reason for ethical action on the basis of the theory of “moral imperative,” but if there is no reaction to karma and no afterlife, then there is no need for morality. As Dostoyevsky put it, “If God doesn’t exist, everything is possible,” meaning no action is immoral.

And without morality human life is animal life. Unselfish materialism is not possible. The innate human tendency toward altruism is evidence of a higher ontological order. Rousseau believed that primitive man was more virtuous precisely because he was in touch with the natural morality that flows from the spiritual condition. There may be a natural unselfishness in man that tends toward altruism. But, if a “natural” unselfishness exists, it is only because our “natural” condition is that of living in harmony with God.

In a higher sense, SELF-ish-ness is natural. It is natural to be in touch with the SELF, our inner self. Self-realization is selfishness and is natural. But true self-realization means realizing ones SELF as part and parcel of the Eternal SELF or Paramatma. The highest form of self-realization is to find one’s self as a servant of the SUPREME Self. There is no such thing as materialistic unselfishness. Materialism teaches us to live by the law or the jungle, exploiting others in the rat-race of survival of the fittest.