Bono (U2) on Grace and Karma

[Thomas]

A long quote ... but as Bono's something of a celebrity, and as he covers an interesting topic ... I thought I'd let it run.

Bono: ... It's a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma.

Assayas: I haven't heard you talk about that.

Bono: I really believe we've moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace.

Assayas: Well, that doesn't make it clearer for me.

Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics—in physical laws—every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It's clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I'm absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that "as you reap, so you will sow" stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I've done a lot of stupid stuff.

Assayas: I'd be interested to hear that.

Bono: That's between me and God. But I'd be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I'd be in deep s---. It doesn't excuse my mistakes, but I'm holding out for Grace. I'm holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity.

Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.

Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled… . It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

Assayas: That's a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it's close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world's great thinkers. But Son of God, isn't that farfetched?

Bono: No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: "I'm the Messiah." I'm saying: "I am God incarnate." And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M" word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ was who He said He was—the Messiah—or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we've been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had "King of the Jews" on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched …

From:
Bono: In Conversation with Michka Assayas (Riverhead Books)

Thomas

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

Bono should stick to something he understands, namely music.

his exposition of karma is flawed from the Buddhist perspective and due to his misunderstanding he rejects it out of hand. it is certainly true that the Dharma traditions have a different exposition of karma but Bono isn't isn't aware of this or simply ignores it.

in point of fact his understanding of karma and what he puts forth is a view which is specifically rejected by the Buddha.. indeed, if what Bono is saying were correct there would be no Awakening or Liberation.

of course i can understand why a being would prefer the idea of grace to the idea of karma.

metta,

~v

[quakeyjase]

My understanding of karma is that it goes far deeper than "what goes around, comes around". It is more about the full implications of every choice and every action in a complex world. The work of unravelling these full implications is therefore unsurprisingly potentially many lifetimes work, whether you believe in reincarnation or not.

In a non-linear system, which we must assume most human systems are (in the spirit of non-elephant zoology etc.), it gets pretty complicated. Our human systems may be critically sensitive to our choices in a way where double the effort may not produce double the effect; it may be half, it may be four times. It may even be hidden in a tangled web of interdependence.

I also think it is problematic to compare karma and grace. They may be descriptions of the same basic sphere of life, but like in the study of vector spaces, mixing sets of basis vectors doesn't necessarily help you span the space.

peace and blessings,

qj

[Thomas]

Hi Vajradhara —

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

... and due to his misunderstanding he rejects it out of hand.

I don't think he rejects karma per se, rather I think his idea of grace supercedes it.

I do accept that he may have an inaccurate understanding of karma according to the Dharma ... but then I think the same applies to his idea of grace.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

of course i can understand why a being would prefer the idea of grace to the idea of karma.

Doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong in either idea, however.

Thomas

[Snoopy]

Clearly he still hasn't found what he's looking for.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7_BcLj...eature=related

YouTube - Ruddy hell u2

s.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Vajradhara —


I don't think he rejects karma per se, rather I think his idea of grace supercedes it.

technically i'd agree with you, what he's explaining as Karma *isn't* karma ipso facto he cannot be rejecting it. he's rejecting his ideas of what he thinks it is.

though i think he's fairly clear that he sees his understanding of Grace as something that supercedes or removes his understanding of Karma in that he's suggesting that it (karma) would have no effect. even in his flawed understanding that would constitute a rejection of the idea.

I do accept that he may have an inaccurate understanding of karma according to the Dharma ... but then I think the same applies to his idea of grace.

undoubtedly.

Doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong in either idea, however.

Thomas

the ideas themselves, no. his exposition of them (due to his influence as a popular music singer), yes. these issues already have enough misconception and confusion surrounding them, imo.

metta,

~v

[Thomas]

Hello Vajradhara —

Thanks for your reply.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

technically i'd agree with you, what he's explaining as Karma *isn't* karma ipso facto he cannot be rejecting it. he's rejecting his ideas of what he thinks it is.

I can agree, although in so doing I should bow to your greater wisdom on this. If the matter is not too complex to express in a forum such as this I would be grateful for a few words to a layman.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

though i think he's fairly clear that he sees his understanding of Grace as something that supercedes or removes his understanding of Karma in that he's suggesting that it (karma) would have no effect. even in his flawed understanding that would constitute a rejection of the idea.

I am obliged to accept this comment in light of the above. In defence (not of him) I don't think grace 'removes' karma — but how as a Christian do I resolve it without negating the Dharma — that for me is a question to work on. Where, in acknowledgement of your path, do we find common ground? To refute karma seems to me to refute wisdom Herself? These are rhetorical questions — I'm 'thinking aloud' as it were.

Thinking on ... I might speculate that the warning given to our Primordial Parents in the Garden is surely an 'instruction on karma'? At it's most superficial the message is 'do this, and this will happen' — by no means thereby do I seek to reduce karma to simply 'cause and effect' — this is God speaking, so there's more to it than an empirical or cosmological inevitability.

Then karma is a reality and one which, in the order of things, takes priority, in that grace is a restorative, The Lord's salvific activity as recorded in our Scriptures, in response to man's actions, by which man is restored in his first foundation, in Irenaeus' words. The restoration of balance, the "making straight the ways of the Lord" to quote the Baptist (John 1:23, quoting the Prophet Isaiah).

Of course, Grace as a Divine Quality for me cannot occupy a secondary station with regard to (my understanding of) Karma as a Divine Quality, without imputing division or complexity in the Deity, any more than Mercy might be secondary or subsidiary to Justice. God is One, as I must profess. Justice and Mercy; Karma and Grace, must all be one.

I am recalled to an essay by the Tibetan Buddhist Marco Pallis, "Is there room for grace in Buddhism?" — I'm sure we've discussed this before — but his premise that "grace" corresponds to a 'dimension of spiritual experience', and that it is unthinkable that such an order of experience should be absent from Buddhism, but rather that the experience finds its expression there too, "vehicled by the appropriate forms" seems close to the mark.

I shall find time to read it again.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the ideas themselves, no. his exposition of them (due to his influence as a popular music singer), yes. these issues already have enough misconception and confusion surrounding them, imo.

Quite. I am rightly chastised! You'd think at my age I'd be cautious of courting 'celebrity endorsement'? Heaven preserve us from professional footballers who decide to offer their theological musings.

Pax,

Thomas

[Netti-Netti]

I think Bono's view is clarified by reference to a Vedic perspective on karma. The Path of Devotion is enabled by G-d's grace. Personal Karma is overcome though the effect of grace. It is replaced by bkakti (devotion) and eventually, by complete surrender.

All energies and their configurations are potentialities of G-d's Creation. They all belong to G-d. It follows logically that love of G-d is the only true Karma and all other forms are distortions or deviations.

The elimination of personal karma is a natural byproduct of the acceptance of Grace. As described in the Narada Bhakti Sutra (NBS) 59, devotion informed by Grace is the "most precious possession." It frees you up from the need for anything else.

Love of G-d is the fulfillment. It puts an end to craving and clinging, so that "one no longer need worry about worldly loss." ~NBS, 81 & 61 As the Narada Bhakti Sutra states succinctly: "Bhakti is its own fruit." It has also been described as "its own means and its own end."
Narada Bhakti Sutra

Bono has it exactly right. There is no fixing what we've messed up. By the same token, there is no transforming bad karma into good. To commit ourselves to such a task only increases bondage. The good news as Bono calls it, is that we shouldn't even bother to try, just as there is no point trying to increase good karma and reduce bad karma. These are all just our way to keep some dignity. As Bono has said in another interview, the idea of personal dignity is just another vain human construct.

In the interview quoted in the OP, Bono said: "Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions." I would simply add that when there is no desire, there's no craving and clinging. When there is no craving and clinging, there's no volitional action. That is, no karma is generated.

Bono didn't mention Buddhism specifically and I don't get the impression he had a Buddhist concept of karma in mind. I see no particular value in invoking Buddhist doctrine in connection with Grace, which is an aspect of Divine Immanence within a monotheistic world view.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post. sorry for the tardy reply.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I can agree, although in so doing I should bow to your greater wisdom on this. If the matter is not too complex to express in a forum such as this I would be grateful for a few words to a layman.

sure enough

Karma, in the Buddhist exposition, cannot be "what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics—in physical laws—every action is met by an equal or an opposite one"

if such was the case no Awakening and Liberation would be possible. the Buddhist exposition of Karma states that a being can mitigate the reaping of what has been sown through various methods which are variously referred to in the Suttas/Sutras as "purifying karma".

I am obliged to accept this comment in light of the above. In defense (not of him) I don't think grace 'removes' karma — but how as a Christian do I resolve it without negating the Dharma — that for me is a question to work on.

it's a tricky question in a comparative sense for both answers arise from fundamentally different paradigms.

in Bono's case he claimed that "Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions.." given such a statement perhaps he didn't mean to indicate that it removes the Vipaka of ones Karma but rather that Love simply interrupts the process.

by the by... Karma is simply intentional actions, thoughts and words. the consequences of Karma are Vipaka; the fruit of our intentional thoughts, actions and words. we are being somewhat imprecise in our discourse which is well enough for our purpose but we have dialoged previously and i recall that you enjoy learning the proper names and such for various religious praxis.

Where, in acknowledgement of your path, do we find common ground? To refute karma seems to me to refute wisdom Herself? These are rhetorical questions — I'm 'thinking aloud' as it were.

no doubt.

our two paradigms have many areas of commonality especially with regards to the day to day practical aspect of living a moral and ethical life where we differ is in our metaphysics for, ultimately, our views arise from profoundly different paradigms.

Thinking on ... I might speculate that the warning given to our Primordial Parents in the Garden is surely an 'instruction on karma'? At it's most superficial the message is 'do this, and this will happen' — by no means thereby do I seek to reduce karma to simply 'cause and effect' — this is God speaking, so there's more to it than an empirical or cosmological inevitability.

Then karma is a reality and one which, in the order of things, takes priority, in that grace is a restorative, The Lord's salvific activity as recorded in our Scriptures, in response to man's actions, by which man is restored in his first foundation, in Irenaeus' words. The restoration of balance, the "making straight the ways of the Lord" to quote the Baptist (John 1:23, quoting the Prophet Isaiah).

insofar as the idea of ones intentional actions, thoughts and words having consequences it seems nigh inescapable that such is demonstrably "the way things are." even Paul makes such a statement with the "as you sow so shall you reap" so this idea isn't too outside of the realm of Christianity. mostly the difference is how to mitigate the vipaka of ones karma, it seems to me.

I am recalled to an essay by the Tibetan Buddhist Marco Pallis, "Is there room for grace in Buddhism?" — I'm sure we've discussed this before — but his premise that "grace" corresponds to a 'dimension of spiritual experience', and that it is unthinkable that such an order of experience should be absent from Buddhism, but rather that the experience finds its expression there too, "vehicled by the appropriate forms" seems close to the mark.

I shall find time to read it again.

that is interesting. i tend to understand the Christian teaching of Grace as something beyond simple spiritual experience though i understand that different Christian groups could have their own exposition of this phenomena.

Quite. I am rightly chastised! You'd think at my age I'd be cautious of courting 'celebrity endorsement'? Heaven preserve us from professional footballers who decide to offer their theological musings.

Pax,

Thomas

indeed

metta,

~v

[greymare]

well, you know what?... It may not be right according to what alot of learned people agree with, but I like his view on the whole thing. Its simple but makes a lot of sense.
Im not saying hes 100% accurate, cos who really knows .... but I think hes not a silly as some think.

[Netti-Netti]

Vaj,

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

in Bono's case he claimed that "Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions.." given such a statement perhaps he didn't mean to indicate that it removes the Vipaka of ones Karma but rather that Love simply interrupts the process.

Which process gets interrupted? The production of karma or the outflow?

I'm not sure what Bono's interests in Buddhism are, if any. There are indications that he is interested in Hinduism, however - both in U2's artistic output and interviews with Bono.

Originally Posted by greymare

... I like his view on the whole thing. Its simple but makes a lot of sense.
Im not saying hes 100% accurate, cos who really knows .... but I think hes not a silly as some think.

It makes perfect sense to me.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

if such was the case no Awakening and Liberation would be possible ... the Buddhist exposition of Karma states that a being can mitigate the reaping of what has been sown through various methods which are variously referred to in the Suttas/Sutras as "purifying karma".

I think it was this aspect that Pallis had in mind when a Christian talks of grace? Again, not sure, I'd have to read him carefully.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

given such a statement perhaps he didn't mean to indicate that it removes the Vipaka of ones Karma but rather that Love simply interrupts the process.

Again, the ignorance is on my side, so I can't really say ... but I would be inclined to agree.

I'm reminded of that Buddhist aphorism, 'before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water' ... it's not what you do, it's the reason why you do it? In the Christian paradigm, one redirect's one's life towards a different end, and thus everything one does is towards that end. This interrupts the process, and sets it off in a new direction.

So that the chance of mitigation exists in Karma suggests the idea of grace or mercy? A dimension which, in a Personal God paradigm, would be in the gift of the Deity.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i recall that you enjoy learning the proper names and such for various religious praxis.

Yes. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

mostly the difference is how to mitigate the vipaka of ones karma, it seems to me.

Seems that way.

Thomas

[Netti-Netti]

erhaps he didn't mean to indicate that it removes the Vipaka of ones Karma but rather that Love simply interrupts the process....mostly the difference is how to mitigate the vipaka of ones karm

Actionlessness ----> fruitless karma. This would likely be relevant to maintaining/elaborating the effects of past volitional actions and also to generating new karma.

In light of what Bono said about the effect of Grace on the consequences of karma, the question that interests me is how Grace makes actionlessness possible. I personally see this as a key issue in terms of the motive power by which the actionless self is effectuated.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Vaj,


Which process gets interrupted? The production of karma or the outflow?

I'm not sure what Bono's interests in Buddhism are, if any. There are indications that he is interested in Hinduism, however - both in U2's artistic output and interviews with Bono.

Dhammapada 1:1-5
1. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage.
2. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.
3. 'He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'--in those who harbour such thoughts hatred will never cease.
4. 'He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'--in those who do not harbour such thoughts hatred will cease.
5. For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule.

Love interrupts by causing hatred to cease...

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Actionlessness ----> fruitless karma. This would likely be relevant to maintaining/elaborating the effects of past volitional actions and also to generating new karma.

In light of what Bono said about the effect of Grace on the consequences of karma, the question that interests me is how Grace makes actionlessness possible. I personally see this as a key issue in terms of the motive power by which the actionless self is effectuated.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Dhammapada 1:1-5
1. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage.
2. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.
3. 'He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'--in those who harbour such thoughts hatred will never cease.
4. 'He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'--in those who do not harbour such thoughts hatred will cease.
5. For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule.
6. The world does not know that we must all come to an end here;--but those who know it, their quarrels cease at once.

Love interrupts by causing hatred to cease...is the cessation of quarrels "actionlessness?"