Pagan Morals

This post was originally written for the 5th number of the online magazine "Puni Mjesec" (Full Moon). Since I publish all my texts on my blog, I decided to do the same with this one. In addition to this, I think that this article could be useful to every Pagan and in general those that want to be informed on the topic of Paganism and the cornerstones of this spiritual path. I can only hope that I am right about this and that my words will give you some new insight. 

The Difference between Morals and Ethics

Morals and ethics are exceptionally similar terms, to the extent that morals are actually a part of ethics. To elaborate, morals are the stance an individual, or a group takes towards the principles of good and evil; it refers to behavioral customs and ideals which are closely related to conscience. We often say that a person is moral, or virtuous and by this, we usually mean that they behave in accordance with his/her own (or perhaps a socially defined) codex of good behavior, that they are fair and that they have a highly developed sense of their role in society. Ethics, apart from it being a distinct philosophical discipline, refers to the behavior that is in accordance with morality rules. As we have established, morals don't have to be individual; they can also belong to a group. Different historical periods had their own morals (e.g. medieval morals), as do different cultures or professions (we can therefore talk about tribal morals, or medical morals). There are also religious morals which are specific for every religion/faith. So, for example, Christian, Islamic and Pagan morals may differ. Yet, there is one important difference between ethics and morals, which is that ethics are global and timeless; they do not have temporal, cultural or geographical boundaries. Ethics implies simply behaving in accordance with morals, regardless of which group or period they belong to. On the other hand, morals are conditioned by these factors. This is why the title of this post is "Pagan morals" in stead of "Pagan ethics".

The Basics of Pagan Morals

Pagan ethics stem from aesthetics. It's important to emphasize that, in this context, "aesthetics" doesn't imply the concept of beauty which is defined by social conventions. On the contrary, it doesn't even have to refer to secular beauty! Aesthetics refers to beauty in any form and in the broadest sense of the word. Aesthetics also includes any form of harmony (or as the ancient Greeks called it - cosmos). It is human to strive towards cosmos i.e. order in any shape and in any aspect of our lives. If everything in our lives was chaotic, then we would be unhappy because chaos by the very definition of the word denotes a sort of abyss, or chasm from which cosmos (order) should and will come forth. Therefore, chaos signifies ugliness and disharmony. Pagans believe that by behaving ethically, they contribute to creating order, beauty and harmony in general. Since anything that is beautiful and harmonious is also aesthetic, we ultimately create aesthetics by behaving ethically. It is precisely because of this that Pagan ethics stems from aesthetics. 

Furthermore, Pagan morals are based on love. In Paganism, and almost all global faiths/religions/spiritual paths, there is something called the "golden rule". It reads: "Do to other as you want them to do to you". This rule exists in Christianity, Judaism, Islam but it was also known to the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese and many other cultures. It simply changed is form according to the culture and time, but it is essentially about the same things - love. It is expected that people, as social beings, behave nicely towards the society they live in as well as towards themselves. You are surely aware of the old saying: "You must first love yourself before you can love another". There is some truth in this. Anyway, love, or in the least respect towards others (and ourselves) is essential for individual and group development. The golden rule speaks precisely about this. If the whole world functioned on the basis of mutual respect (if love is not possible all the time), there wouldn't be as many problems.

The Pagan "Golden Rule"

Pagans have their own version of the golden rule which in its longest form reads: " 'An ye harm none, do what ye will". The short version, which also happens to be the most frequently used version reads: "Harm none". Although this "rule" originally wasn't generally Pagan, it gradually took its honorary place in the Pagan moral system (more information in the post "The Wiccan Rede"). It originally comes from Wicca - a Neopagan denomination which was formed in the 50s in England. Gerald Gardner, who is thought of as the father of Wicca, mentions it for the first time in his book Witchcraft Today: 

„They [witches] are inclined to the morality of the legendary Good King Pausol, “Do what you like so long as you harm no one ". But they believe a certain law to be important, “You must not use magic for anything which will cause harm to anyone, and if, to prevent a greater wrong being done, you must discommode someone, you must do it only in a way which will abate the harm." This involves every magical action being discussed first, to see that it can do no damage, and this induces a habit of mind to consider well the results of one's actions, especially upon others, This, you may say, is elementary Christianity. Of course it is; it is also elementary Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Judaism, to name only a few.“

Surely, Gardner was inspired by Aleister Crowley whose texts he researched in depth, whom he privately knew and with whom he also cooperated in the Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.) into which he himself was initiated. In his Book of the Law, which is one of the basic literary works of this path, Crowley wrote the following: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will. There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt. (...) but in practice, only one act is lawful for each one of us at any given moment. Therefore Duty consists in determining to experience the right event from one moment of consciousness to another". Crowley writes the words "Law" and "Duty" (and in some versions also "Will") with capital letters. By doing so, he emphasizes that he isn't just thinking of any duty, will or law but rather of something personal and transcendental. Will is transcendental because it is correct/lawful (of course, for every person individually). The law is also true because it is true for every person individually (every person knows their own law which is true from their perspective). Duty is also individual and is conditioned by Will and the Law. Therefore, a person's own and true will is that which is intrinsic, which is true for him/her and towards which he/she has to strive. According to Crowley, if everyone were to follow their true Will, there would be no problems in the world because the universe is a cosmos in the complete sense of the word (everything has its place i.e. everything is in order so every person's Will also has its own orbit and nobody's Wills clash). Nevertheless, there is one condition to achieving individual Will - "love is the law, love under will". Gardner paraphrased this condition and turned it into: " 'an ye harm none". Essentially, Pagan morals claim that you can do whatever you want as long as love and/or respect are present because only while it is present can be ensure that no harm will be done. It is important to note that "do what thou wilt" doesn't only refer to actions, but to passive actions as well (or the lack of them). Also, the word "none" includes the doer of the action and not only the beings around him/her. So, both principles offer complete freedom ("do what ye will"), but they also condition it. This is how complete freedom is turned into relative freedom.

Relative Freedom - What Does It Imply?

When talking about relative freedom in the context of morals, the central topic is free will. Free will is that which enables every person do decide what they are going to do and what they aren't. Through this, a person takes on a certain amount of moral responsibility towards him/herself and their surroundings because their every action can and will have a reaction.

Within philosophy, there are two prominent, contrary systems which talk about free will. One of them is determinism according to which everything is predetermined. Therefore, a person's free will and human activity have no effect whatsoever. In this sense, free will doesn't even exist. A contrary belief system is indeterminism which speaks of the existence of absolute free will. That is to say, people can do anything they want because causal reactions do not exist. It's also worth mentioning predestination which is very similar to determinism, but according to predestination, God is the one that decides the fate of everybody and everything.

Pagans are somewhere in between these two extremes because they mainly believe that free will exists, but as a part of a determined world. This could be called the philosophy of compatibilism. Since Paganism doesn't have a strictly prescribed moral codex, opinions may vary, but no one opinion will go to extremes. But even Pagans believe in some sort of conditioning. This can be seen in the Pagan version of the golden rule which, although it confirms the existence of free will, also posts a condition for its existence (" 'an ye harm none"). Our actions, lives and fates generally can be conditioned by many factors; some of them will be external (the world around us, general life conditions in which we find ourselves, or the surroundings into which we are born), and others will be eternal (we can condition ourselves). In this sense, a condition is something that we cannot influence. But this is why all the things that we can influence are subjected to our free will. Nevertheless, we mustn't let ourselves get drunk with free will and in the process stop thinking about the repercussions of our actions. Remember that free will and moral responsibility are inevitably linked together.

Karma - As You Sow, So Shall You Reap

The principle of karma comes from Indian philosophy and primarily speaks of moral retribution. Simply put, every action has a consequence (the law of cause and effect), or rather every action has a reaction. A more common way to put it is: "As you sow, so shall you reap". If this saying is taken literally, it is easy to conclude that the land will not yield tomatoes unless a person first plants them.

Any individual's free will and thus their intentions, play a key role in karma. Namely, people have several choices in any given moment of their life - to do something or not do something. The intention (the final goal, meditating on the path that should be taken) and free will (the very act of choosing a path) define the further development of the situation/life. For example, person X has the intention to go to work that day and decides to do so of their own free will. This person chose one path (a different path would be not going to work, for example). By deciding to go to work, he/she opened many more doors and an myriad of repercussions of this decision. Maybe person X gets a raise at work that day but if he/she hadn't had gone to work, that wouldn't have happened.

One could say that karmic outcomes can be seen in the future (be it the near of distant future). According to Indian philosophy, they can even occur in another lifetime because the notion of karma originally implies the belief in reincarnation (rebirth). Pagans are divided on this topic because some believe that the repercussions of an action have to be visible in the lifetime during which the action was done, while others believe that they can be passed on from life to life (which agrees with Indian philosophy).

Still, Pagans almost always agree with Indian philosophy when it comes to one thing - that every cause (action) has to have a proportionate repercussion (reaction). This repercussion doesn't have to be of the same nature, but it has to correspond to the cause proportionally. This is how balance in the universe as well as the state of cosmos (order) are maintained.

Before this was brought into awareness, a large number of Pagans believed in the Threefold Law which originates from Wicca. According to this "law", the reactions to an action are three times as large as the action itself. For example, if a person does something good, he will receive something three times better. Equally, if they do something bad, they will receive something three times worse in return. Doreen Valiente, Gardner's student, High Priestess and friend (who some see as the mother of Wicca) claimed that too many people had understood Gardner's theory too literally and that too many misinterpretations appeared after this. It simply doesn't make sense that one type of karma applies for Wiccans/witches and another type for everyone else. This rule isn't logical in a secular respect either because, if we go back to the aforementioned example, why would a person's land yield three times as many tomatoes as that person planted?

Either way, karmic reactions are the fruit of conscious actions and choices. The key word here is "conscious" because what we do unconsciously we also don't do with intention. Also, we don't include the factor of free will or active choice-making in the mix. And we have established that intention and free will are essential for the existence of karma.

But what's the whole point of being conscious of the effects of karma? Karma is there to remind us that our every action (or perhaps non-action) has an influence on us and our surroundings. This is why we should be careful about what we do (or do not) do. In addition to this, it's always good to have in mind the golden rule which essentially speaks of basic human values and what our parents teach while we are little - love others (or at least respect them), do what you can for your surroundings, take care of your loved ones, be honest, help those that are weaker and so on. Through all this, an individual develops a sense of responsibility towards him/herself, towards others but also towards their surroundings (Mother Earth).

We could summarize this in the following few sentences:

"Pagan ethics can be compared to a tree which has several big branches. (...) Everything starts with love. Love is the tree out of which the first branch grows: our respect and adoration of the cosmos (order, unity, harmony) from which stem beauty and an affinity towards aesthetics. The second branch is absolute freedom which sends the message that everyone should do what their will tells them to do. The third branch is relative freedom, that is conscious restriction of our own freedom with the freedom of others. This is the principle of nonviolence (harm none). The fourth branch is the branch of compassion, that is the feeling of obligation to help someone who is in distress. The fifth is the branch of avoiding false sentiments and giving up on the people that don't deserve either help or compassion. By doing this, you are actually protecting yourself, which is your most sacred duty. This is how Pagan ethics is entirely rounded and complete." (translation, Iolar, p. 223)

SOURCES:

1. FARRAR, JANET. FARRAR, STEWART. A Witches' Bible: The Complete Witches' Handbook. London: Robert Hale Ltd. 1984.
2. IOLAR. Paganizam u teoriji i praksi: doktrina paganizma (knjiga 1). Zagreb: Despot Infinitus d.o.o. 2013.*
3. VALIENTE, DOREEN. Witchcraft for Tomorrow. London: Robert Hale Ltd. 1978.

*Iolar's books were only published in Croatian and there is no translation of them (yet), but the group title of the three volumes is "Paganism in Theory and Practice". The full title of volume 1 is "Paganism in Theory and Practice: the Doctrine of Paganism".

Paganski moral

Ovaj post je originalno bio napisan za 5. broj časopisa "Puni Mjesec". Pošto sve svoje tekstove objavljujem na blogu, isto sam napravila i s ovim. Uz to, smatram da bi ovaj članak mogao biti koristan svakom paganinu, ali i onima koji se žele informirati o paganizmu i osnovnim polazištima ovog duhovnog pravca. Mogu se samo nadati da sam u pravu i da će vam moje riječi omogućiti neka nova saznanja. :)

Razlika između morala i etike

Moral i etika su izuzetno bliski pojmovi, do te mjere da je moral zapravo sadržan u etici. Da pojasnim, moral je stav kojeg pojedinac, ili neka skupina, zauzima prema načelima dobra i zla; on govori o običajima ponašanja i idealima koji su usko povezani sa savješću. Često za neku osobu kažemo da je moralna, a pod time uglavnom mislimo da se ponaša u skladu s vlastitim (ili pak društveno određenim) kodeksom dobrog ponašanja, da je poštena i da ima jako razvijenu svijest o svojoj ulozi u društvu. Etika, uz to što je zasebna filozofska disciplina, se odnosi na ponašanje koje je u skladu s pravilima morala. Kao što smo ustanovili, moral ne mora samo biti pojedinačan, već i grupni. Različiti povijesni periodi su imali svoj moral (npr. srednjovjekovni moral), kao što imaju i različite kulture, ili profesije (pa tako možemo govoriti o plemenskom moralu, ili liječničkom moralu). Uz to postoji i vjerski moral koji je specifičan za svaku vjeru. Stoga će se, na primjer, kršćanski, islamski i paganski moral razlikovati. No, postoji jedna bitna razlika između etike i morala, a to je da je etika globalna i svevremenska; ona ne pozna vremenske, kulturne i geografske barijere. Etika je naprosto ponašanje u skladu s moralom, kojoj god on skupini ili vremenu pripadao. Moral je, s druge strane, uvjetovan navedenim čimbenicima. Zbog toga naziv ovog članka glasi „paganski moral“, a ne „paganska etika“.

Osnove paganskog morala

Paganska etika proizlazi iz estetike. Vrijedi istaknuti da se u ovom kontekstu pod „estetika“ ne misli na ljepotu koja je određena društvenim konvencijama. Ona čak ne mora označavati svjetovnu ljepotu! Ovdje se misli na ljepotu u bilo kojem obliku i u najširem smislu riječi. Estetika ujedno pokriva i bilo koji oblik sklada (ono što bi antički Grci nazvali kozmos). Ljudski je težiti ka kozmosu, odnosno redu u bilo kojem obliku i u bilo kojem aspektu naših života. Kada bi sve u našim životima bilo kaotično, onda bismo bili nezadovoljni jer kaos po samom značenju riječi označava nekakav ponor ili bezdan iz kojeg treba i hoće proizaći kozmos (red). Stoga, kaos označava ružnoću i nesklad. Pagani vjeruju da se etičkim ponašanjem pridonosi stvaranju reda, ljepote i harmonije uopće. Pošto je estetski sve ono što je lijepo i skladno, etičkim ponašanjem se u konačnici proizvodi estetika. Upravo zbog toga paganska etika proizlazi iz estetike.

Nadalje, paganski moral se temelji na ljubavi. U paganizmu, ali i skoro svim svjetskim vjerama/religijama/duhovnim pravcima, postoji nešto što je poznato kao „zlatno pravilo“. Ono glasi: „Postupajte prema drugome onako kako biste htjeli da drugi postupaju prema vama“. Ovo pravilo je prisutno u kršćanstvu, judaizmu, islamu, a bilo je poznato još i drevnim Egipćanima, Grcima, Kinezima i brojnim drugim kulturama. Ono je samo mijenjalo formu u skladu s kulturom i vremenom, ali se u srži radi o istoj stvari – ljubavi. Od čovjeka se, kao od društvenog bića, očekuje da se ponaša lijepo prema društvu u kojemu živi, ali i prema sebi. Zasigurno vam je poznata ona „Čovjek mora prvo voljeti sebe da bi volio druge“. Ima u tome nešto istine. Svakako, ljubav, ili u najmanju ruku poštivanje prema drugima (i nama samima), je ključna za individualni i grupni razvoj. Zlatno pravilo govori upravo o tome. Kada bi cijeli svijet funkcionirao tako da se svi međusobno barem poštuju (ako se već ne mogu voljeti), ne bi bilo toliko problema.

Pagansko „zlatno pravilo“

Pagani imaju vlastitu inačicu zlatnog pravila koje u punoj verziji glasi: „Ako ne naudite nikome, činite vama po volji“. Skraćeni oblik, ujedno onaj koji se najviše koristi jest „Ne naudi nikome“. Iako ovo „pravilo“ u početku nije bilo općepagansko, ono je s vremenom zauzelo svoje počasno mjesto u paganskom moralnom sistemu (više informacija u postu "Vještičja pouka"). Izvorno dolazi iz wicce – neopaganskog pravca koji je ustanovljen 50ih godina u Engleskoj. Gerald Gardner, kojeg se smatra ocem wicce, prvi ga put spominje u svojoj knjizi Witchcraft Today: 

„They [witches] are inclined to the morality of the legendary Good King Pausol, “Do what you like so long as you harm no one ". But they believe a certain law to be important, “You must not use magic for anything which will cause harm to anyone, and if, to prevent a greater wrong being done, you must discommode someone, you must do it only in a way which will abate the harm." This involves every magical action being discussed first, to see that it can do no damage, and this induces a habit of mind to consider well the results of one's actions, especially upon others, This, you may say, is elementary Christianity. Of course it is; it is also elementary Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Judaism, to name only a few.“

Slobodno prevedeno: One [vještice, wiccani] su sklone moralu legendarnog dobrog kralja Pausola [izmišljenog lika iz jednog romana francuskog spisatelja Pierrea Louÿsa], „Čini što želiš dok god to nikome ne šteti“. Ali one vjeruju da je određeni zakon važan: „Ne smijete koristiti magiju za išta što će povrijediti ikoga i, ako morate uzrokovati nekome nepriliku kako biste spriječili da se neko veće zlo dogodi, to možete napraviti samo na način koji će umanjiti štetu“. To znači da se o svakom magijskom činu mora prvo raspraviti kako bi se ustanovilo da ne može uzrokovati štetu. To potiče mentalnu naviku razmatranja posljedica nečijih djela, pogotovo onih koji utječu na druge. Možda ćete reći da je to elementarno kršćanstvo. Naravno da jest; ono je ujedno i elementarni budizam, hinduizam, konfucijanizam i judaizam, da navedemo samo neke pravce.

Svakako, Gardner je bio inspiriran Aleisterom Crowleyem čije je tekstove duboko proučavao, koga je privatno znao, ali s kim je ujedno i surađivao unutar Reda Istočnog Hrama (Ordo Templi Orientis, O.T.O.) u kojeg je i sam bio iniciran. Crowley je u svojoj Knjizi zakona, koja je jedno od temeljnih djela ovoga pravca, rekao sljedeće: „Čini što ti je Volja i to neka ti bude sav Zakon. Ljubav je zakon, ljubav pod voljom. Nema zakona nad 'čini što te volja' (…) Ali u praksi, samo je jedno djelovanje zakonito za svakog od nas u bilo kojem trenutku. Uslijed toga, Dužnost se sastoji u odlučivanju da se iskusi pravi događaj od jednog do drugog trenutka“. Crowley piše riječi „volja“, „zakon“ i „dužnost“ velikim početnim slovom. Time ističe da ne misli na bilo kakvu dužnost, volju, ili zakonitost već na nešto osobno i transcendentalno. Volja je transcendentalna jer je ispravna (naravno, za svakoga pojedinačno). Zakon je također istinit jer je za svakog pojedinca istinit (svaki pojedinac poznaje vlastiti zakon koji je iz njegove perspektive istinit). Dužnost je također individualna i uvjetovana Voljom i Zakonom. Dakle čovjekova osobna i istinska volja je ono što je urođeno u njemu, što je za njega istinito i čemu on treba stremiti. Prema Crowleyu, kada bi svatko slijedio svoju istinsku Volju, onda ne bi bilo problema u svijetu jer je univerzum kozmos u pravom smislu riječi (sve ima svoj red, pa tako i svačija Volja ima svoju putanju i ničije Volje se međusobno ne sudaraju). Ipak, postoji jedan uvjet za ostvarivanje pojedinačne Volje – „ljubav je zakon, ljubav pod voljom“. Gardner je preoblikovao ovaj uvjet u „ako/dok ne naudite nikome“. U osnovi, paganski moral kaže da čovjek može raditi što ga je volja, dok je god ljubav i/ili poštivanje prisutno jer samo kada ona/ono postoji nikome se neće nauditi. Potrebno je istaknuti da se „čini što te volja“ ne odnosi samo na aktivne radnje, već i na pasivne radnje. Također, riječ „nikome“ obuhvaća i samog činitelja, a ne samo bića oko njega. Dakle, oba načela pružaju potpunu slobodu („čini što te volja“), ali je ujedno i uvjetuju. Time se potpuna sloboda pretvara u relativnu slobodu.

Relativna sloboda – što to podrazumijeva?

Kada se govori o relativnoj slobodi u sklopu morala, pritom se misli na slobodnu volju. Slobodna volja je ono što omogućuje svakom čovjeku da odlučuje što će raditi, a što neće. Time čovjek preuzima na sebe i određenu moralnu odgovornost prema sebi i okolini jer svako njegovo djelo može i hoće imati posljedice.

Unutar filozofije postoje dva istaknuta oprečna pravca koji govore o slobodnoj volji. Jedan pravac je determinizam, prema kojemu je sve predodređeno, pa time čovjekova slobodna volja i ljudsko djelovanje uopće nemaju nikakvog utjecaja. Stoga slobodna volja zapravo ni ne postoji. Njemu kontrastni pravac, indeterminizam, govori o postojanju apsolutne slobodne volje. Odnosno, čovjek može raditi bilo što jer uzročno-posljedične reakcije ne postoje. Također vrijedi spomenuti i predestinaciju koja je jako bliska determinizmu, no prema njoj je Bog taj koji odlučuje o sudbini svega.

Pagani se nalaze negdje na pola puta između ovih krajnosti jer uglavnom vjeruju da slobodna volja postoji, ali unutar determiniranog svijeta. To bi se moglo nazvati filozofijom kompatibilizma. Pošto paganizam nema strogo propisan moralni kodeks, mišljenja se mogu razlikovati, ali nijedno neće ići u krajnosti. No, čak i pagani vjeruju u neku uvjetovanost. To je bilo vidljivo iz paganske verzije zlatnog pravila koje, iako potvrđuje postojanje slobodne volje, također postavlja uvjet za njezino postojanje („dok ne naudiš nikome“). Naša djela, životi i sudbina općenito mogu biti uvjetovani raznim čimbenicima; neki od njih će biti eksterni (svijet oko nas, opći životni uvjeti u kojima se trenutno nalazimo ili okruženje u kojemu smo rođeni), a drugi će biti interni (možemo sami sebe uvjetovati). U tom smislu uvjet je nešto na što ne možemo utjecati. No, zato sve ono na što možemo utjecati podliježe našoj slobodnoj volji. Ipak ne smijemo sebi dopustiti da postanemo opijeni slobodnom voljom i da pritom prestanemo razmišljati o posljedicama svojih djela. Sjetite se da su slobodna volja i moralna odgovornost neminovno povezani.

Karman – kako siješ, tako ćeš žnjeti

Načelo karmana proizlazi iz indijske filozofije i primarno govori o moralnoj retribuciji. Jednostavno rečeno, svako djelo ima posljedicu (uzročno-posljedične veze), odnosno svaka akcija ima reakciju. U narodu bi se reklo „Kako siješ, tako ćeš žnjeti“. Ako se ova izreka gleda doslovno, lako je zaključiti da čovjeku neće uroditi rajčice ako ih ne posadi te godine. 

Slobodna volja pojedinca, a time i namjera, igraju ključne uloge u karmanu. Naime, čovjek ima više izbora u svakom trenutku u životu – napraviti nešto ili ne napraviti nešto. Namjera (konačni cilj, razmišljanje o pravcu kojim se treba ići) i slobodna volja (sami čin odabira pravca) odlučuju o daljnjem razvoju situacije/života. Primjerice, osoba x ima namjeru otići na posao taj dan i svojom slobodnom voljom odluči otići na posao. Ta osoba je odabrala jedan put (skrenula bi drugim putem kada bi, na primjer, odlučila ne otići na posao). Time što je odlučila otići na posao, otvorila su se brojna vrata i bezbroj posljedica odluke. Možda osoba x taj dan na poslu dobije povišicu, ali da nije otišla na posao, to se možda ne bi dogodilo.

Može se reći da se karmanske posljedice očituju u budućnosti (bila ona bliska ili daleka). Prema indijskoj filozofiji, one se mogu pojaviti i u nekom drugom životu jer koncept karmana izvorno uključuje i vjerovanje u reinkarnaciju (ponovno rađanje). Pagani su podvojeni po pitanju toga jer neki vjeruju da se posljedice djela moraju očitovati u životu u kojemu se uzrok dogodio, dok drugi smatraju da se one mogu prenositi iz života u život (što je u skladu s indijskom filozofijom).

Ipak, pagani se u jednom pogledu gotovo uvijek slažu s indijskom filozofijom – da svaki uzrok (radnja) mora imati proporcionalnu posljedicu (reakciju). Ta posljedica ne mora biti iste naravi, ali proporcionalno mora odgovarati uzroku. Na taj način se održava ravnoteža u univerzumu te se održava stanje kozmosa (reda).

Prije nego se to počelo osvještavati, velik broj pagana je vjerovao u Trostruko pravilo (eng. Threefold Law) koje izvorno potječe iz wicce. Po njemu su posljedice trostruko veće od uzroka. Primjerice, ako čovjek učini nešto dobro, to će mu se vratiti trostruko bolje. Isto tako, ako učini nešto loše, to će mu se vratiti trostruko gore. Doreen Valiente, Gardnerova učenica, visoka svećenica i prijateljica (koju neki smatraju majkom wicce) je tvrdila da je previše ljudi doslovno shvatilo tu Gardnerovu tezu i da su nakon toga nastale brojne zablude. Naprosto nema smisla da jedna vrsta karmana vrijedi za vještice/wiccane, a druga za sve ostale. To pravilo nema logike ni u svjetovnom pogledu jer, ako se vratimo na prije navedeni primjer, zašto bi čovjeku urodilo triput više rajčica nego što je zasadio?

Kako god bilo, karmanske posljedice su plod svjesnih radnji ili odabira. Ovdje je ključna riječ „svjesnih“ jer ono što radimo nesvjesno ne radimo s namjerom i ne uključujemo faktore slobodne volje i aktivnog odabira. A ustanovili smo da su namjera i slobodna volja ključni za postojanje karmana.

Ali zašto uopće osvijestiti utjecaje karmana? Karman je tu da nas posjeti da svako naše djelo (ili pak nedjelo) ima utjecaja na nas i na našu okolinu. Stoga bismo trebali paziti što (ne) radimo. Uz to je uvijek dobro imati na umu i zlatno pravilo koje u suštini govori o osnovnim ljudskim vrijednostima i onome što nas uče roditelji dok smo još maleni – voli druge (ili ih barem poštuj), radi ono što možeš za svoju okolinu, vodi brigu u svojim bližnjima, budi iskren, pomaži onima koji su slabiji i tako dalje. Kroz sve ovo u pojedincu se razvija osjećaj odgovornosti prema samome sebi, prema drugima, ali i prema okolini (Majci Zemlji). 

Mogli bismo sve ovo sažeti na sljedeći način: 

„Pagansku etiku možemo usporediti s drvetom koje ima nekoliko velikih grana. (…) Sve počinje u ljubavi. Ona je stablo iz kojeg raste prva grana: naše cijenjenje i divljenje kozmosu (redu, poretku, skladu, harmoniji) iz čega proizlazi ljepota i sklonost estetici. Druga je grana apsolutna sloboda koja nam govori da svatko treba činiti što ga je volja. Treća grana je relativna sloboda, tj. svjesno ograničavanje vlastite slobode tuđom slobodom. To je načelo nenasilja (ne naudi nikome). Četvrta je grana samilost, tj. osjećaj obveze da pomognemo nekome tko je u nevolji. Peta je grana izbjegavanje lažnih sentimenata i odustajanje od onih koji ne zaslužuju ni pomoć ni samilost. Time zapravo štitite sebe, što je vaša najsvetija dužnost. Tako je paganska etika posve zaokružena i cjelovita“ (Iolar, str. 223).

IZVORI:

1. FARRAR, JANET. FARRAR, STEWART. A Witches' Bible: The Complete Witches' Handbook. London: Robert Hale Ltd. 1984.
2. IOLAR. Paganizam u teoriji i praksi: doktrina paganizma (knjiga 1). Zagreb: Despot Infinitus d.o.o. 2013.
3. VALIENTE, DOREEN. Witchcraft for Tomorrow. London: Robert Hale Ltd. 1978.

Pravda ili karma?

Wildwood tarot - karta Nepravde iz male arkane

Karta koju vidite odmah do ovog teksta jest karta Nepravde. Zapitala sam se već mnogo puta do sada zašto su je ilustrator i autor Wildwood tarota odlučili nazvati "nepravda" kada se njezina ikonografija u potpunosti podudara s ikonografijom pravde, ili Justicije kako bi ju Rimljani nazvali.

Pošto sam zaista uživljena u umjetnost, ovo privuklo pozornost pa sam počela istraživati. Tako san naišla na ikonološke sličnosti između modernih prikaza Justicije i više paganskih kultura. Moj tijek misli se nakon toga nastavio razvijati pa sam se zapitala gdje se uopće može povući crta između pravde i karme? I zaista, kada sam doista stala razmisliti o ovome, zaključila sam da ne vidim toliko veliku razliku između njih. Stoga ću u ovom postu s vama podijeliti svoja razmišljanja o ovoj temi. :)

Etimološki, engleska riječ za pravdu dolazi od latinske imenice iustitia (ispravnost, poštenje, pravednost) i pridjeva iustus (uspravan, pravedan). U dvanaestom stoljeću se ova imenica počela koristiti sve više u pravnom kontekstu i referirala se na provedbu autoriteta zaštitom određenih prava (pritom je uvijek bila uključena ili nekakva nagrada, ili pak kazna), iako su i ova prije navedena značenja i dalje bila uvriježena. Ova se riječ kasnije također počela koristiti kao titula za sudske službenike. I hrvatska riječ pravda ima slične korijene. Ona potječe od snove prav koja se odnosi na nešto ravno, nesavijeno i neiskrivljeno (što se opet može povezati s latinskim pridjevom iustus).

Božica Ma'at

Ikonografija pravde na koju smo danas navikli potječe još iz srednjeg vijeka i renesanse. Čini se da je Justicija oduvijek bila prikazivana kao žena. Ovo je vjerojatno bila najlogičnija opcija jer je latinska imenica iustitia također ženskog roda. Njezinu se ikonografiju može naći još u drevnom Babilonu i Egiptu. Zapravo, može se reći da je egipatska božica Ma'at njezina "sestra". Ona je vladala nad pravdom, zakonom, moralom i istinom. Također je kontrolirala ravnotežu zbog čega ju se u egipatskoj mitologiji uglavnom prikazuje prilikom Vaganja srca (s vagom ravnoteže). U ovom se procesu srce preminuloga važe na ovoj vazi. Ono stoji s jedne strane, a na drugoj stoji pero božice Ma'at. Osoba je mogla produžiti u zagrobni život jedino ako joj je srce bilo kaše, ili jednako teško kao pero. Uz ovo, Ma'at je imala mušku ekvivalentu - Tota koji ima praktički iste atribute. Naravno, postoje i druga muška božanstva koja se uzimaju kao sinonim za pravdu poput babilonskog boga Shamasha, sumerskog Utua i drugih. No držimo se za sada ženskih božanstava naprosto zbog jednostavnosti i preciznosti ikonografije.

Dok smo još na ovoj temi, vrijedi spomenuti i grčku titansku božicu Temidu koja je vladala nad božanskim zakonom i redom, grčku božicu Dika koju se veže uz pravdu, ispravni sud i zakon te rimsku božicu Iustitiu (Justiciju). Sve ove božice imaju slične atribute; obično ih se prikazuje kako drže vagu pravde te često imaju povez preko očiju. Ikonografija arhanđela Mihaela je pridonijela ovom prikazu tako da je uključila mač u cijelu priču (Mihael je mačem tjerao Sotonu). Ovakva je ikonografija i dan danas  živa pa ćete stoga gotovo  uvijek vidjeti Justiciju kao mladu ženu s povezom na očima koja drži vagu u jednoj ruci, a mač u drugoj. Vaga je simbol Pravdinom "vaganja" dvaju strana priče/slučaja (npr. vlade i opozicije). Mač je uvijek dvostran kako bi mogao pravilno podijeliti moć Razuma i Pravde time stvarajući objektivnost. Njezin je povez na očima jedan od izvora uzrečice "Pravda je slijepa". Ovaj je izraz logičan naprosto jer je prije bio običaj da slijepci nose povez preko očiju. Naravno, ovo ne znači da je ona doslovno slijepa već da nema predrasuda i da postupa objektivno. Ako vam se čita nešto više o ikonografiji Pravde, preporučam odličan članak koji se naziva "Representing Justice: From Renaissance Iconography to Twenty-First-Century Courthouses". Ali nastavimo s usporedbom pravde i karme.

Pravda i/ili karma?

Koliko je meni poznato, karma nema antropomorfni oblik, a time ni strogu ikonografiju. Karma je koncept koji nadmašuje sve vizualne reprezentacije. Najjednostavnija definicija karme se može naći u izreci "Kako sijete tako ćete žeti". Ukratko, dobit ćete onoliko koliko date. Riječ "karma" se može direktno prevesti kao akcija. Prema ovome je karma sama po sebi jednostavno djelo određene osobe koje se potom odražava na određeni način (stoga će dobra djela odražavati dobru energiju, a loša djela lošu). Budizam i hinduizam tvrde da karma (tj. sve dobre i loše stvari koje osoba učini tijekom života) utječe na buduće živote. Mnogi pagani gledaju na karmu drukčije jer vjeruju da se karmin utjecaj može vidjeti i u ovom životu, a ne samo u budućim inkarnacijama. Ideja karme poziva svaku osobu da bude pažljiva u svojim postupcima jer se to sve može vratiti u nekom trenutku. To jest, može ih se ili nagraditi ili kazniti za njihova prošla djela. Podsjeća li vas ovo na nešto?

Mene jako podsjeća na prijašnju definiciju pravde. Pravdu se dijelilo  ili nagrađujući, ili kažnjavajući ljude za njihove postupke (barem u sudnicama, iako bih rekla da ljudi jako često uzmu stvari u svoje ruke). Ukratko, pravda je ujedno i neka vrsta moralnog koda. U ovom smislu se ona može odnositi na pravednost s kojom se s ljudima postupa, ili pak ne postupa (u potonjem slučaju se radi o nepravdi prije nego o pravdi). Uz ovo, na pravdu se obično gleda iz pozitivne perspektive pošto ona upravlja svime dobrim i lošim, ona garantira da će dobro biti nagrađeno dobrim, a loše biti kažnjeno.

Zatim postoji i fenomen međusobne povezanosti koja je važna kada govorimo o karmi. Kako bi karma zaista funkcionirala, sve treba biti međusobno povezano; svi ljudi, sva djela... Ideja međusobne povezanosti objašnjava da su sve stvari/bića spojeni na neki način i stoga utječu jedno na drugo. Starhawk ovo lijepo objašnjava u svojoj knjizi Spiralni ples: "The felling of tropical forests disturbs our weather patterns and destroys the songbirds of the North. No less does the torture of a prisoner in El Salvador or the crying of a homeless child in downtown San Francisco disturb our well-being. So interconnection demands from us compassion, the ability to feel with others so strongly that our passion for justice is itself aroused" (slob. prev. Ugođaj tropskih šuma remeti naše vrijeme i uništava ptice pjevice sa sjevera. Mučenje zatvorenika u El Salvadoru i plač beskućnog djeteta u centru San Francisca jednako narušavaju našu dobrobit. Stoga, međusobna povezanost od nas zahtijeva suosjećanje, sposobnost osjećanja zajedno s drugima do te mjere da se naša žudnja za pravdom sama pobudi). I tako smo se ponovno vratili na pravdu. Po mome mišljenju, pravda ne samo da igra ulogu u karmi već se s njom može donekle i poistovjetiti. Međusobnu povezanost se također može naći u pravdi; na primjer, kada se zločincu ne dodijeli zatvorska kazna za djelo koje je sigurno počinio (uzmimo za primjer ubojstvo), ovo može kasnije uzrokovati posljedice čak i za ljude koji nisu povezani s tim slučajem (npr. ta osoba može ubiti nekoga dok je na slobodi, što zatim može uzrokovati još desetke reperkusija). 

Još jedna od Starhawkinih misli na ovu temu koji mi je bila zanimljiva jest sljedeća:

"Za vještice pravda nije nešto što sprovodi izvanjski autoritet, temeljem napisanoga koda ili skupa pravila. Pravda je unutarnja spoznaja da svaki čin ima posljedice koje se moraju odgovorno prihvatiti. Vještičja religija ne nameće krivnju, hladan, propovijedajući, samomrzeći unutarnji glas koji obogaljuje djelovanje. Ona umjesto toga zahtijeva odgovornost. »Što posiješ vraća ti se tri puta jače« – poslovica je, snažnija inačica izreke »čini drugima ono što želiš da čine tebi«. Primjerice, vještica ne krade, ne zbog upozorenja u svetoj knjizi, nego zbog tri puta veće štete koja je posljedica malih dobitaka. Krađa uništava kradljivčevo samopoštovanje i osjećaj časti; ona je priznanje nesposobnosti za čestito ispunjavanje želja i potreba. Krađa stvara klimu sumnje i straha u kojoj mora živjeti i kradljivac. I, budući da smo svi povezani u istom društvenom tkanju, oni koji kradu skuplje plaćaju namirnice, osiguranja i poreze. Vještičja religija snažno je prožeta uvjerenjem da je sve povezano i međuovisno i stoga uzajamno odgovorno. Čin koji nekome šteti svima šteti."

Čini se da autorima uspoređuje pravdu s osobnom etikom (jer je pravda "unutarnja spoznaja") a ujedno i s karmom (jer smo "svi povezani u istom društvenom tkanju", jer "je sve povezano" itd.).

Koja je onda razlika između pravde i karme?

Iskreno, ja ne vidim nekakvu značaju razliku. Jedine razlike koje ja vidim su te da se pravdu obične povezuje sa sudskim procesima češće nego s osobnim djelima i privatnom etikom, dok je karma globalna, raširenija i općenitija. Svaka država ima svoj pravosudni sistem, ali karma jednako djeluje u svim zemljama svijeta. Izuzev ovoga zaista nemam argumenata.

Moje je osobno mišljenje da su karma i pravda praktički jedna te ista stvar, ali s minornim razlikama koje su društveno uvjetovane. Moralno su zapravo iste. Zbog ovoga bih voljela čuti vaše mišljenje o ovoj dilemi. Percipirate li vi pravdu i karmu kao identične zamisli, ali s drukčijim imenima? Ili ih pak razlikujete?

Jako bih voljela čuti što imate za reći na ovo, pa slobodno ostavite komentar. :)

Do sljedećeg puta,

vaša Witch's Cat

Justice or Karma?

The Wildwood Tarot - Minor Arcana card of
Injustice

The tarot card you see next to this text is the card of Injustice. I have wondered over and over again why the illustrator and author of the Wildwood tarot deck decided to call in "Injustice" when its iconography completely coincides with that of the iconography of Justice, or Iustitia as the Romans would have called her.

Being an art buff, this really intrigued me so I started digging around. Then I found many connections between the iconography of the Justice we know today and several Pagan cultures. So my stream of thoughts went on and I basically started asking myself where one could draw the line between justice and karma. And truly, when I pondered over this topic, I found that I didn't really see that big of a difference between the two. So in this post, I am going to share my thoughts on this subject with you. :) 

Etymologically speaking, the English word "justice" comes from the Latin noun iustitia (righteousness, equity) and adjective iustus meaning upright/just. In the 12th century, the word was used in a more legal context and referred to the exercise of authority by defending certain rights (usually by either rewarding or punishing), although the previous meanings were still relevant. The word was later used as a title for judicial officers. 

The goddess Ma'at

The iconography of justice that we are used to today goes back to medieval times and the Renaissance period. Justice seems to have always been depicted as a woman. This was probably the most logical option since the Latin noun iustitia is feminine. Her iconography has been traced back to ancient Babylon and Egypt. In fact, her "sister" can be found in the Egyptian goddess Ma'at. She governed over justice, law, morality and truth. She also controlled balance, which is why she presided over the Weighing of the Heart (and the scales of balance) in Egyptian mythology. In this process, the deceased person's heart was weighed against the feather of Ma'at on a pair of scales; only if the heart was lighter or of equal weight as the feather could the soul proceed to the afterlife. Then again, Ma'at had a male equivalent - Thoth, who basically had the same attributes. Of course, other male gods were also synonymous of justice, such as the Babylonian god Shamash, the Sumerian Utu and others. But let us stick to female deities just for the sake of this specific iconography.

Since we are on the subject, I have to mention the Greek Titan goddess Themis who governed over divine law and order, the Greek goddess of justice, fair judgment and law - Dike and also the Roman Iustitia. All of these goddesses have similar attributes; they are usually depicted holding the scales of justice and are often blindfolded. The iconography of the archangel Michael added to the iconography by incorporating the symbol of the sword (which he used to ward off Satan). This iconography has lived on to this day and you will find that Justice is nowadays always depicted as a blindfolded woman holding scales in one hand and a sword in the other. The scales are a symbol of Justice's weighing the two sides of a case/story (i.e. the support and opposition). The sword is always double-edged so it can equally divide the power of Reason and Justice resulting in objectivity. Her blindfold is one of the sources of the saying "Justice is blind". Since the blind usually wore blindfolds in the past, this was only logical. Although, this does not mean that she is generally blind, but rather that she is not prejudiced and is objective in her actions. If you feel like reading more on her iconography, I recommend a wonderful article entitled "Representing Justice: From Renaissance Iconography to Twenty-First-Century Courthouses". But let us move on to compare justice and karma.

Justice and/or Karma?

As far as I know, karma does not have an anthropomorphic shape and thus no strict iconography either. It is a concept which surpasses all visual representations. The most basic definition of karma can be seen in the proverb "As you sow, so shall you reap". Basically, you will get back as much as you give. The word "karma" can be directly translated as action. According to this, karma itself is simply the action of a certain person which is then reflected in an appropriate way (so good deeds will reflect good energy and bad deeds will reflect bad energy). Buddhism and Hinduism claim that karma (i.e. all the good and bad things that a person does in one life) affects future lives. Many Pagans see karma a bit differently as they believe that karma's influence can also be seen in this life as well as other incarnations. The notion of karma urges everyone to be careful of what they do because it can all come back to them at some point in time. That is to say, they can either be rewarded or punished for their past actions. Does this remind you of anything?

Well it definitely reminds me of the aforementioned definitions of justice. Justice is and was dispensed by either rewarding or punishing people for their actions (at least in courtrooms, but I would say people more often than not took the law/justice into their own hands and delivered street justice...wow...too many idioms). So basically, justice is also a sort of moral code. In this sense, it can refer to the fairness with which people are treated, or sometimes not treated (in which case we are talking about injustice rather than justice). Nevertheless, justice is usually seen from a positive perspective as being that which governs right and wrong, which ensures that the good will be rewarded with good and that the bad will be punished.

Then there is the phenomenon of interconnectedness which is relevant for karma. In order for karma to really work, everything has to be connected; all people, all actions... The notion of interconnectedness explains that all things/beings are linked in one way or another and thus affect one another. Starhawk explains this nicely in her book The Spiral Dance: "The felling of tropical forests disturbs our weather patterns and destroys the songbirds of the North. No less does the torture of a prisoner in El Salvador or the crying of a homeless child in downtown San Francisco disturb our well-being. So interconnection demands from us compassion, the ability to feel with others so strongly that our passion for justice is itself aroused". And we come to justice again. In my opinion, not only does justice play a role in karma but it can be equated with it in a sense. Interconnectedness can also be seen in justice; for instance when a criminal is not put in jail for a crime he has definitely committed (e.g. murder) then this may bring forth certain consequences for people not directly related to his case (e.g. he may murder a random person when he is set free and this, in turn, may cause tens more repercussions).

Another one of Starhawk's thoughts on the subject which I found interesting is the following one:

"Witches do not see justice as administered by some external authority, based on a written code or set of rules imposed from without. Instead, justice is an inner sense that each act brings about consequences that must be faced responsibly. The Craft does not foster guilt, the stern, admonishing, self-hating inner voice that cripples action. Instead, it demands responsibility. "What you send, returns three times over" is the saying-an amplified version of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." For example, a Witch does not steal, not because of an admonition in a sacred book, but because the threefold harm far outweighs any small material gain. Stealing diminishes the thief's self-respect and sense of honor; it is an admission that one is incapable of providing honestly for one's own needs and desires. Stealing creates a climate of suspicion and fear, in which even thieves have to live. And, because we are all linked in the same social fabric, those who steal also pay higher prices for groceries, insurance, taxes. Witchcraft strongly imbues the view that all things are interdependent and interrelated and therefore mutually responsible. An act that harms anyone harms us all."

The author seems to be comparing justice to personal ethics (as justice is an "inner sense") and also to karma ("we are all linked in the same social fabric", "all things are interrelated" etc.).


So what is the difference between justice and karma then? 

Honestly, I don't see that big a difference. The only possible differences could be that justice is commonly more related to courtrooms than personal doings and ethics, whereas karma is more global, more widespread and general. Each country has its own juridical system, but karma works the same in all parts of the world. Other than this, I find myself lacking in arguments.

It is my personal belief that karma and justice are practically the same thing but with minor differences that are just socially defined. Morally, they are the same thing. This is why I would like to hear your opinions on the subject. Do you perceive karma and justice as identical ideas but with different names? Or do you differentiate them?

I would love to hear what you have to say, so please leave a comment. :)
Until next time. Yours,
Witch's Cat