"You have the right to work, but never to the fruit of work." (Hinduism, Bhagavad Gita 2:47)
True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.
My thoughts:
At first glance, this looks like some kind of poorly thought out, or even evil, economic nostrum. But even to the extent that it can be interpreted that way, it's not some earthly slave-master to whom the "fruit of work" belongs, but to the deity, and then only as a matter of dedication/thanks. Hare Krishna devotees (the Hindus with whom I am most familiar personally), for example, make "sacrifices" of food they have grown and/or prepared to Krishna, but then they themselves eat that food. It's more a matter of attributing all things to the god than of actually handing the "fruits of the work" over to someone else.
And the real point of the passage doesn't seem to be that kind of thing in any case. It's more about not assuming consequence from action as a matter of ego. In the context of the passage, it's about the denial of self as cause -- that you did X does not entitle you to consider yourself the cause of the consequences (at least all the consequences) of having done X.
As a rational egoist, I have to reject the aphorism. My opinion is that one bears responsibility for -- owns -- the consequences -- good and bad -- of one's actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment