Guest guest Posted November 3, 2000 Report Share Posted November 3, 2000 I wish to contribute to the discussion on Morality. Morality cannot be the same everywhere and be independent of the society we live in. The difference between one society's morals and another is always one of degree and not of kind. Our moral is someone else's poison. We see this illustrated in mahabharatha time and again : consider the following two values which I am sure many societies will consider as constituents of Morality: (1) I will abide by my mother's words no matter what (2) I and my partner will practice monogamy Suppose you are in a situation which pits (1) vs. (2) in direct conflict - As it happened when Arjuna won the hand of Draupadi and got her home and Kunti said all brothers should " share " whatever they got equally. What do you do then? Is (1) better or (2) better? I wager, 2 reasonable societies will come to opposite conclusions on this issue and yet claim to be moral. So how can morality be absolute? consider the following situation yet again in the Mahabharatha : The following 2 " Values " or " Morals " appear reasonable (1) I will always tell the truth no matter the circumstances (2) I will protect my kith and kin from destruction Pit (1) vs (2) as when Drona was rampaging the Pandavas and defeat appeared certain for pandavas. Krishna steps in with the killing of Aswathama the elephant and announces the " death of Aswathama " (which also happens to be the name of the dear son of Drona). Drona knowing Yudishtra's honesty asks him if it was true? If you are Yudhistira what do you do: Is (1) better to be upheld or (2)? Was Harischandra right in speaking truth no matter what and bring suffering to chandramathi and Lohidasa? Is speaking truth more important than letting wife and children suffer? Can we sit in judgement? Vegetarianism is revered by many of the Hindus and yet Swamiji suggests that for a fit body to practise sadhanas if meat is required one should go ahead. So is vegetarianism moral and non vegetarianism not? To sum up, I recall Thakurji's simile : We are like the tender saplings in quest for spirituality. To protect ourselves from the " goats " (ie. the world) we need the fencing and protection of morality (yama/niyama,asana and the like) Once we become giant trees (spiritually evolved/realised and established in the truth) we can then dismantle the fencing. Morality is necessary but not sufficient to realise our true nature. On realisation of our true nature, morality is superflous. Time and again we see the actions of great masters and we are unable to reconcile that with " Our sense of morals " since it is limited. with love sreedhar > Morality comes from soul. It can't be dictated and forced upon. And soul > is same everywhere whether it be eastern or western or any other planet. > Soul is free from society and so is with morality. > Morality and soul are same everywhere. > one has to question the society and accept whatever one's soul affirms > too. > Morality is beyond intelligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2000 Report Share Posted November 7, 2000 Namaste Kathi! I don't know if morality is subset of Dharma or Dharma is a subset of morality. I feel they r more or less the same. all selfishness n fear vanishes when one reallises that he is the only one. N its only then that the true morality can come. Becoz he knows the one with whom he will be immoral is nothin but him. Morality in its rue essence will be known only after one realises one self. Till then one might be following morality but one will fail to justify it with all his/her heart n soul. True morality can never be there in dualism. Because as you or some other knowledgable member has said that dualism brings fear and in fear true morality can't exist. It can only be there when there is nothin but one. The kind of morality we are talking abt is something which we experience not something which have been forced on us. Society is a structred form. The laws of society can be wrong too. > > Namaste > Morality is part of Dharma. It cannot be separated from it. And morality > is also not absolute...it cannot be, as it deals with duality. Swami > Vivekananda during his sojourn, met the tibetans and was totally shocked to > find out that Tibetan women married 5 husbands, and that is their culture. > This may be immoral in many cultures but not in Tibet. He was very shocked > to know that. > > In Dharma, there are 2 kinds. One is common dharma (samanya) and the other > specific Dharma (vishesha). Truthfulness, non-violence, non-stealing etc.. > are common dharma while the duty of a son, soldier, husband, wife or a king > are specific dharma. By following Dharma, we attain purity of mind. Karma > Yoga also helps us greatly in achieving this. What is meant by mental > purity here is the quality of sattva (a composed mind). What we are aiming > to achieve is also that? In Vivekachudamani, Shankara says that only a > sattvic mind can contemplate on the Atman. Even the Katha Upanishad says > this: 'he who has not renounced evil ways, who is not at peace, who cannot > concentrate, WHOSE MIND IS NOT COMPOSED cannot reach the self, even by right > knowledge.' > > Therefore, the practice of morality or to follow the path of dharma is to > ultimately achieve this sattvic mind. > > Please correct me if I am wrong or if any of my statements make no sense. > Thank you. > > Om Shanti > Kathi > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.