The War Within - Between Good and Evil, Bheemeswara Challa [books for 7th graders txt] 📗

were
amenable to evil. The great rishi Vyasa, towards the very end of the Mahabharata,
laments: “When people can satisfy all their desires like wealth, prosperity, etc., by
treading the path of righteousness, why do they choose adharma?” That Vyasa (who
not only wrote the epic but was also an important participant in that story) should
ask such a question, after the triumph of dharma over adharma at the battle of
Kurukshetra, is a telling commentary on human nature. The other question that
then crops up is: ‘When God solemnly promises that when evil reaches a level
that threatens the cosmic balance, He will Himself appear on earth to destroy
evil and restore righteousness to its due place, why should we do anything to
protect dharma?’ If God should do everything, then why do we exist? Let us
not forget: Krishna, believed to be the complete manifestation or incarnation
of God that ever existed on earth, could not—or chose not to—prevent the
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
380
great massacre of war. Likewise, we have no answers to questions like why God
allowed the extermination of millions of Jews by Hitler, or for that matter, many
other blood-curdling atrocities or even more pertinently individual evil actions.
The fact of the matter is that we have to lead our mundane lives without knowing
the ‘mind of God’. Modern life is so multilayered and multicentered, and we do
so many things just to be alive, relevant, and competitive in the world, that it is
almost impossible to know what one’s own individual dharma is. Not knowing
what our primary passion and cosmic calling in life should be, is like being just
adrift like a reed in a stormy sea or a leaf in a gusty gale. Another complicating
factor is that there is more to becoming a righteous being than doing righteous
deeds. Not acting when action is not required, not wounding with a cutting
word, not humiliating and hurting others, not taking advantage of another
person’s vulnerabilities, are also essential elements of a righteous person. Almost
everything we do either hurts or helps another person; the trick is to turn our
hurt as a way to heal others. It has to become a ‘way of life’; how we originate
and incubate thoughts, how we use the power of speech, and how we perform
the tiniest of actions, and how all of them affect the cosmic order.
In the divine calculus, where does the world stand or rank today on the
dharma-scale? How far are conditions ripe for divine descent? How much time
do we have, and who will invite divine wrath and who will be worthy of His
protection? Who are the ‘righteous’ in today’s world and who are the ‘wicked’? Is
a religious person a righteous person, and is ‘religious’ rage a ‘just cause’? Does
divine thought neutralize bad behavior? Can prayer protect the oppressor and
the exploiter? Can one be both ‘rich’ and ‘moral’? Given that there was never
a time, and there never will be a time, when the earth is completely free from
adharma or unrighteousness, what is the tipping point that could trigger divine
intervention? Is every criminal ‘wicked’? Does having no criminal record entitle
us to be called righteous? Could one be moral and a criminal at the same time?
We must remember that a ‘righteous’ person could be different from one who
does the ‘right’ thing, not only because the same person could do both ‘right’
and ‘wrong’ at different times, but also because our ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is largely
a matter of legality or social legitimacy. Is a law-abiding citizen a virtuous being
who deserves divine rescue while a petty thief is fit to be a divine quarry? Will
God protect or punish a religious zealot who kills and/or sacrifices himself to
Towards a New Vocabulary of Morality
381
avenge dishonor to his God? Mind you, those who get killed by God are said to
be the blessed ones—they are liberated, not necessarily the only ones saved! The
shortest way to get to heaven, in one sense, is to get killed in yuddha or war—
veeragati, as they say. Heaven must be, if that is applicable across-the-board and
down the ages, a pretty crowded place with all those dead in modern wars. Or
is that honor reserved only for those killed in a ‘just war’, dharma-yuddha, and
if so, who determines that? What about a soldier who simply obeys orders and
kills or gets killed? We must also reexamine the oft-repeated statement that wars
kill ‘innocent’ people. People can be ignorant but no one can be innocent in the
karmic sense. And, in the end, every death is a kind of ‘killing’, even a suicide.
The cause or trigger can be bacteria or a bomb, the arena, either one’s own bed
or the street, hospital, or home.
Our goals in life cannot be divorced from the slew of obligations,
responsibilities, and duties we have towards others, but at the same time, these
cannot be allowed to become obstacles to realizing fulfillment. The ‘duties’ in life,
direct or implicit, that we need to fulfill has long been a subject of thoughtful
introspection as well as scriptural scrutiny. According to the Vedic scriptures,
an individual is born with three kinds of debts—Deva-runa (debt to God);
Rishi-runa (debt to the sages, saints); and Pitru-runa (debt to one’s parents,
ancestors)—debts that must be repaid during his or her span of life. These debts
are like mortgages on one’s life, but not liabilities, as they constitute an attempt
by the scriptures to create an awareness of one’s duties and responsibilities. Special
importance is given to one’s debt to Bhoomi Devi, Mother Earth. On waking up
in the morning, every Hindu is supposed to seek forgiveness through the prayer,
Samudra Vasane Devi; Parvata Sthana Mandite; Vishnu Pathni Namasthubhyam;
Pada Sparsam Kshamasva Mae (“Salutations to the divine consort of Lord
Vishnu; who is clothed by the oceans; and is adorned prettily by the mountains;
forgive me Mother for setting foot upon you”). The Hindu ‘doctrine of duty as
debt’ is a very important dimension of human morality. What is significant is
that it stretches the ambit of our duties and obligations beyond the immediacy
or intimacy of terrestrial interpersonal relationships, and includes our duty to
the dead who gave us life. Death does not terminate our duty or debt. During
the Bhadrapada month of the traditional Hindu calendar, a specific period
called pitru-paksha is set aside for ancestor-worship and veneration of the dead.
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
382
During this fortnight, people donate food to the hungry in the hope that their
ancestors will also be thus fed. The idea that a life on earth has an obligation
not only to our fellow-humans but also to those who lived before us is a major
contribution to moral philosophy and ethics. The premise is that repaying the
debt to ancestors is as important as repaying the debt to God, nature, sages,
and society.
Moral Progress and Animal Rights
We must also factor in Gandhian morality, and particularly Gandhi’s famous
dictum: ‘When we are in doubt about a course of action, try to imagine the
face and life of the most miserable person we have seen, and then decide what
course or choice could make that person’s life a little less miserable’. The other
useful guide could be the observation often attributed to Gandhi, ‘The greatness
of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are
treated’. Views differ on this score, too. Most, judging by what we see and read
and experience, would probably argue that we are ‘regressing’, and science, in
the name of ‘animal testing’,16 has made it worse. It is now a part of perfecting
‘militarism’, and the modern state’s endless quest to improve the efficiency of
destructive weapons. So much so that, “Killing and maiming is not enough,
great importance is attached to the scientific nature of the weapon’s effect.
Whether it is by burning, poisoning, suffocation, infection or attacking the
nervous system, each method is meticulously ‘refined’ on sentient, unconsenting
lab animals.”17 The justification for such ‘testing’ has long been that animals and
humans share similar biological processes; that the data obtained from animal
models can be extrapolated and applied to human conditions; that every major
medical advance has been based on animal testing; and therefore that whatever
immorality that might entail is unavoidable and well worth it. The additional
justification offered is that animals too have benefitted from research through
laboratory animals. That very rationale is now being questioned, and researchers
are of the opinion that it can even be dangerous to apply animal-derived data to
humans.18 Still, animal research has not slowed down; in fact, in countries like
UK, research activity has gone up.19 In USA, the use of animals in experiments
at leading federally-funded labs has increased nearly 73% in the past 15 years.20
Towards a New Vocabulary of Morality
383
Ultimately, it is a matter of money. The fact is that there is far too much money
involved for it to be given up. The question is not if such testing is inescapable
or not for human healing. The real question is, does an animal qualify to be
deemed a ‘person’? On what grounds can we morally differentiate between the
life, safety, and well-being of humans and nonhumans? If ‘intelligence’ is the
criterion, would we substitute a mentally retarded man, or a baby, in the place of
another animal with the same IQ? If it is the faculty of experiencing pain, there
is not much difference between humans and some animals. The basic point is
that we have always assumed—and even most major religions have concurred—
that humans are the acme of creation, that they are inherently a superior form
of life, and that they have a God-given right to use the earth and every creature
on it for their own pleasure and progress. All of us in our personal lives practice
this principle. On what other rationale do we keep pets, or ride on the backs of
animals like an elephant and horse? The best among us, save perhaps some rishis,
are incapable of ‘non-discrimination’ between human animals and other animals.
Whether or not ‘other animals’ agree or not we have no way of knowing; but they
are powerless.
While morality in its broadest meaning is universal, in its specifics it is
relative to each society, to each epoch, and is, above all, relative to the interests
of the different social classes. No idea or ideology is immune to time, nor can
it exist outside of the social context from which it has emerged. But it cannot
become an escape from one’s moral, even social, obligations and turn relativism
into a masquerade for the moral malevolence of modern man. The practical
reality is that since right and wrong are relegated to matters of opinion at worst,
or are purely subjective at best, any talk of morality becomes just that—talk.
Some principles are universal and will be timeless, like respect for the integrity
and dignity of another person, and consideration and compassion for all and
under every circumstance, though in their application one should be sensitive to
context, culture, and class in its broadest meaning. Some ask the question: does
that ‘all’ include even the evil, the wicked, and the villain? If we want to ‘comfort
the afflicted’, must we ‘afflict the comfortable’? If we want to help the poor,
must we hate the rich? What about justice, and, perhaps even more, justness, the
combination of which is called dharma in Hinduism and dhamma in Buddhism?
These are taxing questions that have troubled great men, avatars, saints, and
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
384
rishis, and there are no cut-and-dried, across-the-board answers. Ultimately,
each situation has to be handled situationally but based on principles. But
generally we should strive to be kind, caring, and empathetic to everyone unless
that causes harm to another more deserving being. The larger common good
prevails over narrower needs. One can also argue that the virtuous do not need
our compassion; it is only for the wicked that it makes the greatest difference.
We should also remember that all of us do good and bad deeds and no one is
‘all-good’ or ‘all-bad’, and that everyone is subject to karmic influence. Who
are we to ‘throw the first stone’? Sorrows and wounds are healed only when we
touch them with compassion. If we ‘pick’ and ‘choose’ then it becomes selective
and selfish. Classical or ‘old-fashioned’ morality—honesty, integrity, prudence,
frugality, fidelity, generosity—is still necessary, but not sufficient on the morrow
of a new millennium. We need to inject what is called ‘civic virtue’, that it is the
cultivation of habits of personal living that are important for the social order
and success of the community. That should also be reflected in what and whom
we reward and punish in society.