The War Within - Between Good and Evil by Bheemeswara Challa (e book reader online .txt) 📕
Excerpt from the book:
The human has always prided himself as an exceptional ‘moral species’ but has always been haunted by two questions: ‘Why am I not good when I want to be; ‘why do I do bad when I don’t want to’. This is at the heart of what scriptures and sages have long alluded to as the eternal internal struggle-between good and evil - that wages in the human consciousness.
Read free book «The War Within - Between Good and Evil by Bheemeswara Challa (e book reader online .txt) 📕» - read online or download for free at americanlibrarybooks.com
Download in Format:
- Author: Bheemeswara Challa
Read book online «The War Within - Between Good and Evil by Bheemeswara Challa (e book reader online .txt) 📕». Author - Bheemeswara Challa
but they are symptomatic
and symbolic of a deeper source. It is not, as we tend to say, ‘all in the mind’.
It is the mind, plain and simple, lock, stock, and barrel. The wrong step we
have taken is that we have put the wrong ‘person’ at the helm of our lives—our
brain- and mind-driven ‘intelligence’. What Einstein called “our limited mind”,
which has caused, in his words, a “weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being”. We have done this both willfully and by default.
Willful because we are always fully in the flow of the ‘nature of the beast’, of
what our mind is and is not. Default because there is no one else, so to speak,
‘on the bench’, no substitute or alternative. Our cognitive skills and abilities that
are embedded in every human thought, word and action, and in mechanisms of
Towards a New Vocabulary of Morality
375
how we learn, remember, problem-solve, however much we fine-tune and boost
them, are, in the words of Henri Bergson, “created (as they are) by life, in definite
circumstances, to act on definite things…”; they are incapable of “presenting the
true nature of life, the full meaning of the evolutionary movement”.9 Some say
that the laws of physics may well prevent the human brain from evolving into an
ever more powerful thinking machine.10 But optimists say that we might be able
to, over time, find ways to target-train our mental muscles and specific parts of
our brain the way we do now our biceps, to dramatically enhance our cognitive
capacities and also acquire the capability to turn other people into ‘extensions of
our brains’.11 Present-day gurus are of the opinion that ‘There is no discernible
difference between human mental functioning and its simulation by a suitably
programmed computer. Computers, in principle, can think’.12 We already have
in some cities what is being called a gym for the brain,13 a fitness center for
brain-exercise. It is said that “The very act of interacting with others or working
with smart devices will help us continue to develop our brains, and as our brains
develop, we will in turn be able to use increasingly sophisticated devices and rely
on people in more complex and powerful ways”.14 But, more fundamentally,
what is ‘thinking’ and what is ‘thought’? We identify both with the brain/mind,
which is true. We also associate it with ‘computation’, calculations per second,
and the number of potential computational pathways; and that is how we ‘think’
about a computer ‘thinking’. A machine might do what a ‘thinking’ human
might do in certain respects, but what about ‘consciousness’?
‘Being moral’ should not be at the expense of being social or fighting
injustice. The ability to judge right from wrong is of no use if we don’t carry it
forward. Although we tend to think that there can be no dissenter of something
as ‘good’ as morality, there have always been voices who viewed ‘morality’ as
an instrument to legitimize oppression, which is also the Marxist view. Trotsky,
for example, wrote, “Morality, more than any other form of ideology has
a class character. The ruling class forces its ends upon society and habituates
it to considering all those means which contradicts its ends as immoral”. He
wrote, “The capitalist class could not have endured for even a week through
force alone. It needs the cement of morality”. But what Trotsky and his likes
considered as ‘morality’ might not be very different from what ‘morality’ ought
to be. Morality, in its true meaning, must be an abiding concern for the wellThe
War Within—Between Good and Evil
376
being of the world beyond our own, for sharing one’s good fortune and others’
handicaps and suffering, for showing empathy for the weak and compassion
for the marginalized, which is the essence of ‘from everyone according to their
capacity and to everyone according to their need’. Morality and Marxism are
certainly not synonymous, but it is possible to draw from both while looking into
the future. The good news is that scientists say that they have found a ‘biological
footprint for compassion’—which is at the very core of morality. The vagus nerve
in our body, in their opinion, ‘appears to be intimately tied to experiencing
compassion towards other people’s suffering,’ and it ‘affects whether or not we
can handle the feelings provoked by another person’s suffering—and whether or
not we will feel concerned and motivated to help’. And to put it in perspective,
we are also told that empathy and sympathy are not a human moral monopoly,
and that even mice are empathic beings that feel the pain and suffering of other
mice, and that whales have emotions and do express gratitude. And ‘gratitude’ is
important to humans too, to lead a moral life. Every day, even every minute we
have a cause to be grateful to someone or the other, and not acknowledging and
acting upon it negates the essence of morality. As Maya Angelou puts it, “Let
gratitude be the pillow upon which you kneel”. The meaning and message is that
“compassionate relationships with animals are integral to a more compassionate
world”. And we should fundamentally recognize that “animals have active minds
and deep feelings” and that “we must ‘mind’ them as their caretakers in a humandominated
world, where their interests are continually trumped in deference to
ours”.
The Doctrine of Dharma
The concept of dharma is the bedrock of Hinduism, its most important doctrine.
There is no corresponding word in any other language. Hinduism itself was
originally referred to as the Sanatana dharma, or ‘ancient righteous way of life’.
If diligently followed, dharma is said to give man both worldly happiness and
moksha (liberation) from the eternal cycle of birth and rebirth. But how is dharma
defined, and where is it codified? And what is adharma (that which is not in accord
with dharma)? There is no clear and concise translation of the word ‘dharma’,
although it is generally interpreted to encompass attributes like morality, ethical
Towards a New Vocabulary of Morality
377
conduct, righteous behavior, justness and justice, discernment, etc. Dharma is
also closely identified with two other words, niti and niyama, broadly translated
as ethics and morals. The Indian epic Mahabharata discusses dharma at length.
One verse says, “It is most difficult to define Dharma. Dharma has been explained
to be that which helps the upliftment of living beings. Therefore, that which
ensures the welfare of living beings is surely Dharma. The learned rishis have
declared that which sustains is Dharma”. Lord Krishna famously proclaimed, in
the Bhagavad Gita, that ‘when dharma on earth is terminally threatened, He will
incarnate as an avatar to restore dharma to its rightful place’.15 He even justified
the slaying of righteous persons like the great Bhishma, when they chose to side
with adharma or unrighteousness. This principle carries profound consequences,
and it means that for the greater right it is okay to adopt morally questionable
means.
The broad scope of dharma is mainly threefold. Firstly, it is designed
to ensure the order and regularity of the world. It is sometimes described as
“that which contains or upholds the cosmos”. Secondly, it ensures peace and
happiness by guiding people in the right direction. Thirdly, it provides necessary
guidance to people so that they can overcome their impurities and deficiencies
and work for their liberation. It is said that to really grasp the essence,
meaning and governing principles of dharma, we have to refer to fourteen sacred
texts collectively referred to as the Dharma pramana, or the true knowledge
of dharma. These texts are: (1) the four Vedas (Rig, Yajur, Sama, Atharva);
(2) the six Vedangas or auxiliaries of the Vedas (siksha, pronounciation;
vyaakarna, grammar; chandas, meter; nirukta, etymology; jyotisha, astronomy);
and (3) the four Mimamsas, interpretations of Vedic texts (nyaaya, logic; purana,
mythology; and dharma shastras, codes of conduct). Itihasas or epics such as
the Ramayana and Mahabharata (which is referred to as the panchama veda,
the fifth Veda) are meant to make understanding and harmonizing of the four
purusharthas—dharma, artha, kama, and moksha—easier to the lay person with
limited intuitive capacities. They offer a more practical way to adapt dharma to
everyday life by carefully studying and grasping the conduct of the epics’ two
central characters, Rama and Krishna. Here again, we are told that we should do
what Rama did, and follow what Krishna said. That is perhaps because Rama
was a purushothama, ‘the greatest or most perfect of men’; whereas Krishna was a
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
378
poorna or sampoorna avatara, the ‘fullest or complete manifestation of God’. God
is governed by different dynamics and can do things that no man can, however
perfect he may be; but a perfect man can be emulated. Krishna’s words must be
listened to because He is supreme and is the perfect teacher; we must behave as
Rama did because his actions were human and are within human reach.
Both epics are replete with dharmic dilemmas, and also raise for the human
intellect some troubling questions. For example, Rama was a divine incarnation,
but he was a man and he ‘died’ like a god—he just walked into the river Sarayu
and ascended to divinity. Krishna was God himself on earth but he died like an
ordinary man. Krishna’s way of dying was variously explained or explained away,
but the fact remains. In the Mahabharata, it is said that where there is dharma,
there is Krishna, and where there is Krishna, there will be victory. Krishna was
on the side of the Pandavas not because he was fond of them or related to them,
but because dharma was on their side. Such instances are worth examining more
closely. Duryodhana, the eldest of the Kauravas, was considered as adharmic
or evil, because he was envious of the Pandavas and denied their claim to the
Hastinapura throne. He also tried to physically eliminate them. Duryodhana’s
argument was that he was the eldest son of King Dhritarashtra, and therefore,
by tradition, he was entitled to succeed him. The counter argument was that
Yudhishthira was elder to him and—had his father Pandu, the younger brother
of Dhritarashtra and the ‘original’ king not abdicated the throne in favor of his
elder brother—he, Yudhishthira, would have been the successor, and Duryodhana
would have had no claim. To that, Duryodhana argued that his father was elder
to Pandu and should have become king in the first place. Duryodhana argued
that in any case Dhritarashtra, his father, was the king and therefore his claim to
the throne was stronger than that of Yudhishthira.
It is clearly a very complicated matter and not a clear choice between
dharma and adharma. So, why did Krishna side with the Pandavas and ensure
their victory even at the cost of a terrible war and, even more, why did he not
hesitate to transgress the Yuddha dharma (the dharma of war) in the killing of
Bhishma, Drona, Karna, and Duryodhana? Krishna justified that anyone aiding
adharma or evil is himself adharmic and evil, and killing that person becomes an
act of dharma. It means that the ends justify the means. Perhaps the answers to
these dharma sankats (conundrums of dharma) are beyond the grasp of human
Towards a New Vocabulary of Morality
379
intellect. And the dharma that accompanies us beyond our death need not be
some superhuman sacrifice but a conglomerate of the minutiae of myriad chores
and choices of daily life. We do not have to be heroes or do extraordinary deeds
to seek either wholeness or moksha (liberation from sorrows) or nirvana (end of
suffering), or whatever one likes to describe that state.
What comes to mind is the famous Hindu dictum Dharmo rakshati
rakshitaha (‘If you protect dharma, dharma will in turn protect you’). While the
idea that ‘if we lead a life guided by principles of dharma then we are insured
of its protection’ is logical and clearly intelligible, what is intriguing is the latter
concept that implies that dharma also needs our protection, and even further,
if we do not protect dharma, we cannot expect protection from dharma. How
can we protect the very thing we are seeking protection from? It is a very subtle
and important point. It is the recognition that while dharma holds the cosmic
balance and order, there are also antithetical forces and ‘negative energy’ in
nature. After all, everything in nature is dwanda or a pair of opposites; nothing
exists by itself, not even dharma. One way to protect dharma is by protecting
dharmic or righteous people. We cannot ignore the horrific reality of evil in
human history. Evil is as much within us as without, and it manifests as the
arishadvarga, the ‘six passions’—kama (lust), krodha (anger), lobha (greed), moha
(delusion), mada (arrogance) and matsarya (malice). So long as we are captive to
them there will be adharma in the world—evil, lawlessness, immorality, chaos,
disorder, falsehood, violence, etc. Even in the best of times, the best of men
and symbolic of a deeper source. It is not, as we tend to say, ‘all in the mind’.
It is the mind, plain and simple, lock, stock, and barrel. The wrong step we
have taken is that we have put the wrong ‘person’ at the helm of our lives—our
brain- and mind-driven ‘intelligence’. What Einstein called “our limited mind”,
which has caused, in his words, a “weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being”. We have done this both willfully and by default.
Willful because we are always fully in the flow of the ‘nature of the beast’, of
what our mind is and is not. Default because there is no one else, so to speak,
‘on the bench’, no substitute or alternative. Our cognitive skills and abilities that
are embedded in every human thought, word and action, and in mechanisms of
Towards a New Vocabulary of Morality
375
how we learn, remember, problem-solve, however much we fine-tune and boost
them, are, in the words of Henri Bergson, “created (as they are) by life, in definite
circumstances, to act on definite things…”; they are incapable of “presenting the
true nature of life, the full meaning of the evolutionary movement”.9 Some say
that the laws of physics may well prevent the human brain from evolving into an
ever more powerful thinking machine.10 But optimists say that we might be able
to, over time, find ways to target-train our mental muscles and specific parts of
our brain the way we do now our biceps, to dramatically enhance our cognitive
capacities and also acquire the capability to turn other people into ‘extensions of
our brains’.11 Present-day gurus are of the opinion that ‘There is no discernible
difference between human mental functioning and its simulation by a suitably
programmed computer. Computers, in principle, can think’.12 We already have
in some cities what is being called a gym for the brain,13 a fitness center for
brain-exercise. It is said that “The very act of interacting with others or working
with smart devices will help us continue to develop our brains, and as our brains
develop, we will in turn be able to use increasingly sophisticated devices and rely
on people in more complex and powerful ways”.14 But, more fundamentally,
what is ‘thinking’ and what is ‘thought’? We identify both with the brain/mind,
which is true. We also associate it with ‘computation’, calculations per second,
and the number of potential computational pathways; and that is how we ‘think’
about a computer ‘thinking’. A machine might do what a ‘thinking’ human
might do in certain respects, but what about ‘consciousness’?
‘Being moral’ should not be at the expense of being social or fighting
injustice. The ability to judge right from wrong is of no use if we don’t carry it
forward. Although we tend to think that there can be no dissenter of something
as ‘good’ as morality, there have always been voices who viewed ‘morality’ as
an instrument to legitimize oppression, which is also the Marxist view. Trotsky,
for example, wrote, “Morality, more than any other form of ideology has
a class character. The ruling class forces its ends upon society and habituates
it to considering all those means which contradicts its ends as immoral”. He
wrote, “The capitalist class could not have endured for even a week through
force alone. It needs the cement of morality”. But what Trotsky and his likes
considered as ‘morality’ might not be very different from what ‘morality’ ought
to be. Morality, in its true meaning, must be an abiding concern for the wellThe
War Within—Between Good and Evil
376
being of the world beyond our own, for sharing one’s good fortune and others’
handicaps and suffering, for showing empathy for the weak and compassion
for the marginalized, which is the essence of ‘from everyone according to their
capacity and to everyone according to their need’. Morality and Marxism are
certainly not synonymous, but it is possible to draw from both while looking into
the future. The good news is that scientists say that they have found a ‘biological
footprint for compassion’—which is at the very core of morality. The vagus nerve
in our body, in their opinion, ‘appears to be intimately tied to experiencing
compassion towards other people’s suffering,’ and it ‘affects whether or not we
can handle the feelings provoked by another person’s suffering—and whether or
not we will feel concerned and motivated to help’. And to put it in perspective,
we are also told that empathy and sympathy are not a human moral monopoly,
and that even mice are empathic beings that feel the pain and suffering of other
mice, and that whales have emotions and do express gratitude. And ‘gratitude’ is
important to humans too, to lead a moral life. Every day, even every minute we
have a cause to be grateful to someone or the other, and not acknowledging and
acting upon it negates the essence of morality. As Maya Angelou puts it, “Let
gratitude be the pillow upon which you kneel”. The meaning and message is that
“compassionate relationships with animals are integral to a more compassionate
world”. And we should fundamentally recognize that “animals have active minds
and deep feelings” and that “we must ‘mind’ them as their caretakers in a humandominated
world, where their interests are continually trumped in deference to
ours”.
The Doctrine of Dharma
The concept of dharma is the bedrock of Hinduism, its most important doctrine.
There is no corresponding word in any other language. Hinduism itself was
originally referred to as the Sanatana dharma, or ‘ancient righteous way of life’.
If diligently followed, dharma is said to give man both worldly happiness and
moksha (liberation) from the eternal cycle of birth and rebirth. But how is dharma
defined, and where is it codified? And what is adharma (that which is not in accord
with dharma)? There is no clear and concise translation of the word ‘dharma’,
although it is generally interpreted to encompass attributes like morality, ethical
Towards a New Vocabulary of Morality
377
conduct, righteous behavior, justness and justice, discernment, etc. Dharma is
also closely identified with two other words, niti and niyama, broadly translated
as ethics and morals. The Indian epic Mahabharata discusses dharma at length.
One verse says, “It is most difficult to define Dharma. Dharma has been explained
to be that which helps the upliftment of living beings. Therefore, that which
ensures the welfare of living beings is surely Dharma. The learned rishis have
declared that which sustains is Dharma”. Lord Krishna famously proclaimed, in
the Bhagavad Gita, that ‘when dharma on earth is terminally threatened, He will
incarnate as an avatar to restore dharma to its rightful place’.15 He even justified
the slaying of righteous persons like the great Bhishma, when they chose to side
with adharma or unrighteousness. This principle carries profound consequences,
and it means that for the greater right it is okay to adopt morally questionable
means.
The broad scope of dharma is mainly threefold. Firstly, it is designed
to ensure the order and regularity of the world. It is sometimes described as
“that which contains or upholds the cosmos”. Secondly, it ensures peace and
happiness by guiding people in the right direction. Thirdly, it provides necessary
guidance to people so that they can overcome their impurities and deficiencies
and work for their liberation. It is said that to really grasp the essence,
meaning and governing principles of dharma, we have to refer to fourteen sacred
texts collectively referred to as the Dharma pramana, or the true knowledge
of dharma. These texts are: (1) the four Vedas (Rig, Yajur, Sama, Atharva);
(2) the six Vedangas or auxiliaries of the Vedas (siksha, pronounciation;
vyaakarna, grammar; chandas, meter; nirukta, etymology; jyotisha, astronomy);
and (3) the four Mimamsas, interpretations of Vedic texts (nyaaya, logic; purana,
mythology; and dharma shastras, codes of conduct). Itihasas or epics such as
the Ramayana and Mahabharata (which is referred to as the panchama veda,
the fifth Veda) are meant to make understanding and harmonizing of the four
purusharthas—dharma, artha, kama, and moksha—easier to the lay person with
limited intuitive capacities. They offer a more practical way to adapt dharma to
everyday life by carefully studying and grasping the conduct of the epics’ two
central characters, Rama and Krishna. Here again, we are told that we should do
what Rama did, and follow what Krishna said. That is perhaps because Rama
was a purushothama, ‘the greatest or most perfect of men’; whereas Krishna was a
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
378
poorna or sampoorna avatara, the ‘fullest or complete manifestation of God’. God
is governed by different dynamics and can do things that no man can, however
perfect he may be; but a perfect man can be emulated. Krishna’s words must be
listened to because He is supreme and is the perfect teacher; we must behave as
Rama did because his actions were human and are within human reach.
Both epics are replete with dharmic dilemmas, and also raise for the human
intellect some troubling questions. For example, Rama was a divine incarnation,
but he was a man and he ‘died’ like a god—he just walked into the river Sarayu
and ascended to divinity. Krishna was God himself on earth but he died like an
ordinary man. Krishna’s way of dying was variously explained or explained away,
but the fact remains. In the Mahabharata, it is said that where there is dharma,
there is Krishna, and where there is Krishna, there will be victory. Krishna was
on the side of the Pandavas not because he was fond of them or related to them,
but because dharma was on their side. Such instances are worth examining more
closely. Duryodhana, the eldest of the Kauravas, was considered as adharmic
or evil, because he was envious of the Pandavas and denied their claim to the
Hastinapura throne. He also tried to physically eliminate them. Duryodhana’s
argument was that he was the eldest son of King Dhritarashtra, and therefore,
by tradition, he was entitled to succeed him. The counter argument was that
Yudhishthira was elder to him and—had his father Pandu, the younger brother
of Dhritarashtra and the ‘original’ king not abdicated the throne in favor of his
elder brother—he, Yudhishthira, would have been the successor, and Duryodhana
would have had no claim. To that, Duryodhana argued that his father was elder
to Pandu and should have become king in the first place. Duryodhana argued
that in any case Dhritarashtra, his father, was the king and therefore his claim to
the throne was stronger than that of Yudhishthira.
It is clearly a very complicated matter and not a clear choice between
dharma and adharma. So, why did Krishna side with the Pandavas and ensure
their victory even at the cost of a terrible war and, even more, why did he not
hesitate to transgress the Yuddha dharma (the dharma of war) in the killing of
Bhishma, Drona, Karna, and Duryodhana? Krishna justified that anyone aiding
adharma or evil is himself adharmic and evil, and killing that person becomes an
act of dharma. It means that the ends justify the means. Perhaps the answers to
these dharma sankats (conundrums of dharma) are beyond the grasp of human
Towards a New Vocabulary of Morality
379
intellect. And the dharma that accompanies us beyond our death need not be
some superhuman sacrifice but a conglomerate of the minutiae of myriad chores
and choices of daily life. We do not have to be heroes or do extraordinary deeds
to seek either wholeness or moksha (liberation from sorrows) or nirvana (end of
suffering), or whatever one likes to describe that state.
What comes to mind is the famous Hindu dictum Dharmo rakshati
rakshitaha (‘If you protect dharma, dharma will in turn protect you’). While the
idea that ‘if we lead a life guided by principles of dharma then we are insured
of its protection’ is logical and clearly intelligible, what is intriguing is the latter
concept that implies that dharma also needs our protection, and even further,
if we do not protect dharma, we cannot expect protection from dharma. How
can we protect the very thing we are seeking protection from? It is a very subtle
and important point. It is the recognition that while dharma holds the cosmic
balance and order, there are also antithetical forces and ‘negative energy’ in
nature. After all, everything in nature is dwanda or a pair of opposites; nothing
exists by itself, not even dharma. One way to protect dharma is by protecting
dharmic or righteous people. We cannot ignore the horrific reality of evil in
human history. Evil is as much within us as without, and it manifests as the
arishadvarga, the ‘six passions’—kama (lust), krodha (anger), lobha (greed), moha
(delusion), mada (arrogance) and matsarya (malice). So long as we are captive to
them there will be adharma in the world—evil, lawlessness, immorality, chaos,
disorder, falsehood, violence, etc. Even in the best of times, the best of men
Free e-book: «The War Within - Between Good and Evil by Bheemeswara Challa (e book reader online .txt) 📕» - read online now on website american library books (americanlibrarybooks.com)
Add a comment
Comments (0)