Morality & Spirituality (Concluding Part)

In my opinion, morality and spirituality both work together as well as in stages. Morality comes first and Spirituality later. But they also develop different things in a man, both equally essential. Morality's aim is to develop Conscience (Vivek) in a person. Spirituality's aim is to develop Bliss (Anand).

However, speaking of morality, there are 2 things we need to consider - (1) Keeping track of changing morality, as discussed earlier and (2) Morally ambiguous situations.

The changing nature of morality, in my opinion, is best illustrated in Mahabharat, the eternal saga. There can a whole book written about the fabulous play of morality in Mahabharat, especially with characters like Yudhishtir, Bheeshm Pitamah, Karn and Sri Krishna. Lets take them one-by-one -

a) Yudhishthir - He is called Dharmraj, and he demonstrates why in the yaksh-prashn episode of Mahabharat. It is one of the most enlightening episodes of the epic, one which answers a lot of questions about man and life. His philosophy throughout the Mahabharat war is to have a Dharm-Yuddh. His conduct earns him heaven, and a small infraction in telling the truth is duly rewarded. But his conduct during the Dyut-Kreeda is less than Dhaarmik, and it is obvious that the Mahabharat war could not have been won if he had been at the helm.

b) Bheeshm - The epitome of dedication and how-to-keep-a-pledge. His knowledge is vast and his valour is unmatched. Yet he, tied fatally to the throne of Hastinapur, watches the massacre of his family helplessly. His lapses at so many places, like Chir-Haran and failing to persuade Dhritrashtra & Duryodhan, cost him dear in the end.

c) Karn - One of the most complex and intriguing characters of the epic. So many wrongs are done to him throughout his life that you forget counting them, and the "bad" thing he does is stick by his friend no matter what. Agreed, he participates in Chir-Haran and Abhimanyu-Vadh, but his virtues far outshine his vices. His major fault - not giving good advice to Duryodhan as his friend. But seen purely from the human aspect, he is far greater than almost every other character..

d) Sri Krishna - The Lord himself! His morality is unbounded, unguided and undeniably controversial if valued in the human idea of mortality. But then, the Gita isn't called divine just like that. He employs all means, fair and otherwise, to win the war. He clearly shows that ends are more important than the means, provided that the end is THAT good. His style of functioning is unique because of the simple fact that he does not attach himself to his actions and other worldlinesses. He can be very fond of one thing at one point, and then be completely detached to it at the next. That is the supreme ideal of living, and that is why he is the Lord!

The first 3 have some inherent weaknesses associated with them - some form of ideal, or pledge or value. But Sri Krishna is above all these things. As he says, morality and immorality, good and bad come forth from him, and so for him, these things are nothing. But then, that is possible only when you have attained complete detachment, which is virtually impossible for an ordinary mortal. Hence, Karmanyevaadhikaaraste....one of the most profound philosophies ever! And that is what brings us to spirituality - When one is spiritual, morality seems like basics. A spiritual man can take even big moral decisions with ease, because he has had a realization of himself and he is far more aware of what should be done than a non-spiritual man.

Spiritual here, of course, does not mean a religious man. He could be an atheist in societal terms, but as Swami Vivekanand says - He is not an atheist who does not believe in god, he is an atheist who does not believe in himself.

There are also many morally ambiguous situations in a person's life. A fine example is Lying to save someone's life. Others include issues like Euthanasia, Capital Punishment etc. How does one deal with these? I don't know the answer to this. Of course, if we apply Sri Krishna's philosophy to it, there does not remain a dilemma - Live and act as per your Dharm and surrender the fruits to the Lord. But on a more realistic level, I feel that the real question here is that whatever the decision we make, do we have the courage to live with the consequences? If a man's Vivek really is well-developed, and if he knows the circumstances and the consequences, and then makes a decision fearlessly and boldly, there is no dilemma for him.

The measure of a man's life is not mainly by what he has thought or done; but mainly by the feelings, values and ideals behind his actions, and his ability to live with the outcomes of his actions. It doesn't matter whether you lean more towards morality or spirituality - it matters that you keep moving in life, keep trying to remove desires, keep trying to develop detachment, keep trying to realize your self and the truth of life.....and of course, the eternal 2 - Vivek and Anand....

Morality & Spirituality (Part 1)

Morality & Spirituality...Do they co-exist or are they the antithesis of each other? Is one superior or are both equal? Is there a transition involved or are the two at the same level? Various questions galore, considering esp. that while there seems to be a fine line between the two, upon greater scrutiny, the two seem quite different...but then again in my opinion, not as different as they are made out to be.

One of my dear friends Girija had sent me an article about Morality and Spirituality. The essence of the article was that the two are different because while Morality is rigid and does not allow for variations, spiritualism is at the level of the individual and free for interpretation. Morality is essentially human, and spiritualism divine. Classification of worldly subjects into good or bad, as done by morality, is a vain attempt...as these things are relative and not absolute - What's good for one may not be so for the other.

A few points come to mind. The classification of things into good and bad is done so as to (a) bring order into the society and (b) set people on to the path of realization. Morals give direction to society, give rise to civilization and safeguard humanity, because we all know that inside every man is both a good aspect and a bad aspect (Something like the angel-and-devil conflict depicted in cartoons and movies). Morality, therefore, is essential for us to control the devil aspect and make the transition from homo sapiens to human beings. Those who look at morality as inferior are not thinking of the society and the world at large, especially the spiritualists - at least they ought to know better...its like the college graduate looking down upon primary education! Even Gautam Buddha, in his 8-fold path to remove suffering caused by desire (the essentiality of spiritualism), prescribes a whole lot of "right" things to do - right thoughts, right action and so on. The question is not whether morality is inferior or superior...it is just what it is - the start of the journey that later transforms into spirituality, which then transcends into realization. This journey is like a river's journey - the change from morality to spirituality to realization can be seen as a river changing from a gurgling one to one gently flowing, to ultimately becoming one with the sea.

As to morality being man-made, even spirituality is something that has come about gradually as a result of man's increased questioning, awareness and realization. So would it be wrong to call it as man-made? Spirituality is referred to as "divine", but divinity is also an idea thought up by man. So let us rest this point of divinity vs man-made.

The real question is - Can morality be the be-all-and-end-all of life? Can one be a good person, a righteous person upholding essential human values, not care about the spiritual aspect of life and still gain the essential human experience? The answer is not easy. It depends on one's interpretation of morality. And there lies the problem with morality - while it is perceived as rigid and universal, it is not constant and keeps changing. If one understands that and acts accordingly, then it is fine. Otherwise, it is better to be more spiritual and look within yourself before going out and practicing and preaching values which are ambiguous and antiquated. Rigid morality is definitely a problem. And an even bigger problem is when conventions and customs slowly develop into morals. Any type of Self-righteousness is quite a bit, if not as much, of menace as immorality.

But that is not a victory for spiritualism. The other question - can spirituality be the be-all-and-end-all of life? - also presents its share of problems. The answer depends upon one's interpretation of spirituality. Some might think worshipping daily is enough, some will perform yagnas, others will keep fast and visit pilgrimages. But the common thing is that most of them never ever have any realization of their own self, which is the aim of spirituality. Spiritualists will argue that the things I'm talking about are external features, more to do with religion than spiritualism, and that the real spiritualism is different from it all. I agree with them, but then i'm not talking about the theory, i'm talking about the ground reality. And in reality, these very external things that were supposed to carry one towards realization (the agents of spiritualism if you will) take him away from it. Similarly, ideal practice of morality means to keep track of changing times and changing with it, keeping some universal desirable values as they are. But in reality, morality's degradation and rigid interpretation and practice is there for all to see.

So what is the purpose and the connection of morality and spirituality? and what kind of morality should a man practice, given the times we live in? Let's address this in the next one.