The Rama Krishna Paradigms
Swami Gulagulaananda said:
"The moral fabric is netted, the sizes of holes not constant"
Let me start off by saying that the attitude in this post is intentionally cynical
As kids, we are taught a series of moral lessons - "Don't hurt others", "Don't steal from others"... and as we grow up "Don't covet others' wives" and so on. As children, we are taught to take these statements as truths, we don't question them, we simply accept them. The reason being that we don't have the maturity and experience to validate them. So we accept them, and we follow them.
As we grow up, we gain both experience and maturity. At this point, we can begin to validate our lessons and accordingly strengthen those that matched with reality and discard those that didn't. AI junkies will consider this as strengthening of synapses and those who've read 'I'm OK, You're OK' will relate this with the PAC model.
This is however true if we have the maturity and intelligence and more importantly, the disposition and inclination to validate what we were taught.
Consider a person whose father is a criminal. He is taught that all policemen are evil. If the child has not been taught to think independently, the child will continue to see policemen as evil. A man who is an absolute believer of God will teach his child about God and imbibe it deeply into him. He will also warn him of others who will dissuade him away from the path of God, calling those people are heretics... This is precisely how religious fanatics or fanatics in general are created. They lack the ability to be unbiased.
This example above makes one wonder what is correct. For, a person teaches his child the kind of wisdom he has gained over the years, the kind of things that HE thinks is correct. If he is a criminal, then he and policemen are natural enemies and therefore it is the truth for him. Now this lesson is not an absolute truth - but just truth from his perspective.
Extending this, lessons such as "Don't lie", "Don't steal" etc. are also truths from someone's experiences or view points. To summarise, all moral lessons and moral truths are someone's opinions.
Now the moment something becomes subjective or true from someone's perspective, it is not necessarily true for everyone. It is therefore bendable, flexible, mutable and expendable. The entire system of morality is therefore flexible and varies from people to people. Morality therefore boils down to what most people around you think it is.
People in the past anticipated or would have observed this kind of thinking and therefore they associated morality with God. If you do this, you will go to heaven and if you do that, you will go to hell. By portraying paradise and burning flesh, and associating it with judgment based on merits accumulated, they tried to ensure people will stick by what they thought was best for society. Note that I am not saying good or bad because they are subjective. Stealing is bad, revenge is bad and so on - lessons such as these kept people from doing things that would bring about an entire system of anarchy and lawlessness, and if such an environment existed, society couldn't have progressed to what it has today.
Why you ask? Many of the scientists who brought about revolutionary technologies are perhaps wimpy looking and powerful muscular people could have broken necks. But fear of being judged by God prevented them from doing such things. If God didn't judge them, society would definitely. There are always people who don't care about judgments and therefore the system of law was needed.
Rama and Krishna are two great heroes of our past, God to many, mythological to some, historical characters to some. But Rama and Krishna are quite different in their personalities. While both of them appear to be perfect in all ways, knew all the arts, stood and fought for justice, were good looking and made all girls around them swoon, great warriors and so on, they were also very different.
Rama was an ideal person. He followed all the rules of Dharma, dotting all the i's and dashing all the t's. He was a boy scout, flawless in his execution. On the other hand, Krishna bent many rules. The simplest example was tricking Drona by getting Yudhishtira to say Ashwaththama was dead and blowing his conch when Yudhishtira was saying that it was the elephant Ashwaththama, thereby intentionally getting Drona to think incorrectly that it was his son Ashwaththama who was dead. Rama would have never done it.
Now the question is, was Krishna right in doing it? Purists (Rama) will say that it is fighting dirty, you were misleading him intentionally while others will say that it was right, he wanted to win the war and he got things done. Morality is full of examples such as these. Not everything is in absolute black and white, rather everything is in varying shades of grey.
However, it cannot be told with absolute certainty that Rama would have behaved in the same way he did if he was there during Krishna's time. For, our actions are also largely governed by those around us. Rama's world was one filled with more overall "goodness" - where more people were (conventionally) just. Even Ravana was like that, he never forced himself upon Sita. Krishna's time was more corrupt, with people like Duryodhana and Dushasana having no limits to how low they would stoop (nothing compared to the world we live in though, again, the lowness being subjective)
What I have noticed is that we live in a hypocritical society. We are taught to do a lot of things, but in reality, none of them is followed. Everybody bends rules when it is convenient. And we only point fingers at those who do things that we wouldn't do because we are afraid of repercussions (either legal or of being talked about), not because we think it is right. We all have rules, but as situations arise, we start dropping them one by one. We pass comments about how immoral strip clubs are and then when you get a chance to go to Las Vegas, you are immediately asked "So, you went to strip clubs huh?" because it is expected that people will go. The so called moral fabric is basically a material made of nets with holes all over.
The society that we are in currently exists in the way it is, not because of the inherent goodness of people, not because people in general are good but because of rule of law. Imagine for a moment, a world where you cannot be penalised for anything. Imagine a world where you cannot be jailed or punished. What would happen? If people don't fear accountability, if people don't fear being talked about, if people don't fear punishments, will they continue to live by following the rules of Dharma? Of righteousness and justice and ideals?
Chanakya said that straight trees are cut first. So to be a Rama in this modern world doesn't seem viable. One must therefore not live based on ideals that have been taught or handed to us, rather constantly learn from the surroundings and from others' experiences and adapt one's policies, beliefs and principles continuously. One must therefore attempt to be a Rama in Rama's world and a Krishna in Krishna's world and definitely not a Rama in Krishna's world for it is as incongruous as it is fatal.
"The moral fabric is netted, the sizes of holes not constant"
Let me start off by saying that the attitude in this post is intentionally cynical
As kids, we are taught a series of moral lessons - "Don't hurt others", "Don't steal from others"... and as we grow up "Don't covet others' wives" and so on. As children, we are taught to take these statements as truths, we don't question them, we simply accept them. The reason being that we don't have the maturity and experience to validate them. So we accept them, and we follow them.
As we grow up, we gain both experience and maturity. At this point, we can begin to validate our lessons and accordingly strengthen those that matched with reality and discard those that didn't. AI junkies will consider this as strengthening of synapses and those who've read 'I'm OK, You're OK' will relate this with the PAC model.
This is however true if we have the maturity and intelligence and more importantly, the disposition and inclination to validate what we were taught.
Consider a person whose father is a criminal. He is taught that all policemen are evil. If the child has not been taught to think independently, the child will continue to see policemen as evil. A man who is an absolute believer of God will teach his child about God and imbibe it deeply into him. He will also warn him of others who will dissuade him away from the path of God, calling those people are heretics... This is precisely how religious fanatics or fanatics in general are created. They lack the ability to be unbiased.
This example above makes one wonder what is correct. For, a person teaches his child the kind of wisdom he has gained over the years, the kind of things that HE thinks is correct. If he is a criminal, then he and policemen are natural enemies and therefore it is the truth for him. Now this lesson is not an absolute truth - but just truth from his perspective.
Extending this, lessons such as "Don't lie", "Don't steal" etc. are also truths from someone's experiences or view points. To summarise, all moral lessons and moral truths are someone's opinions.
Now the moment something becomes subjective or true from someone's perspective, it is not necessarily true for everyone. It is therefore bendable, flexible, mutable and expendable. The entire system of morality is therefore flexible and varies from people to people. Morality therefore boils down to what most people around you think it is.
People in the past anticipated or would have observed this kind of thinking and therefore they associated morality with God. If you do this, you will go to heaven and if you do that, you will go to hell. By portraying paradise and burning flesh, and associating it with judgment based on merits accumulated, they tried to ensure people will stick by what they thought was best for society. Note that I am not saying good or bad because they are subjective. Stealing is bad, revenge is bad and so on - lessons such as these kept people from doing things that would bring about an entire system of anarchy and lawlessness, and if such an environment existed, society couldn't have progressed to what it has today.
Why you ask? Many of the scientists who brought about revolutionary technologies are perhaps wimpy looking and powerful muscular people could have broken necks. But fear of being judged by God prevented them from doing such things. If God didn't judge them, society would definitely. There are always people who don't care about judgments and therefore the system of law was needed.
Rama and Krishna are two great heroes of our past, God to many, mythological to some, historical characters to some. But Rama and Krishna are quite different in their personalities. While both of them appear to be perfect in all ways, knew all the arts, stood and fought for justice, were good looking and made all girls around them swoon, great warriors and so on, they were also very different.
Rama was an ideal person. He followed all the rules of Dharma, dotting all the i's and dashing all the t's. He was a boy scout, flawless in his execution. On the other hand, Krishna bent many rules. The simplest example was tricking Drona by getting Yudhishtira to say Ashwaththama was dead and blowing his conch when Yudhishtira was saying that it was the elephant Ashwaththama, thereby intentionally getting Drona to think incorrectly that it was his son Ashwaththama who was dead. Rama would have never done it.
Now the question is, was Krishna right in doing it? Purists (Rama) will say that it is fighting dirty, you were misleading him intentionally while others will say that it was right, he wanted to win the war and he got things done. Morality is full of examples such as these. Not everything is in absolute black and white, rather everything is in varying shades of grey.
However, it cannot be told with absolute certainty that Rama would have behaved in the same way he did if he was there during Krishna's time. For, our actions are also largely governed by those around us. Rama's world was one filled with more overall "goodness" - where more people were (conventionally) just. Even Ravana was like that, he never forced himself upon Sita. Krishna's time was more corrupt, with people like Duryodhana and Dushasana having no limits to how low they would stoop (nothing compared to the world we live in though, again, the lowness being subjective)
What I have noticed is that we live in a hypocritical society. We are taught to do a lot of things, but in reality, none of them is followed. Everybody bends rules when it is convenient. And we only point fingers at those who do things that we wouldn't do because we are afraid of repercussions (either legal or of being talked about), not because we think it is right. We all have rules, but as situations arise, we start dropping them one by one. We pass comments about how immoral strip clubs are and then when you get a chance to go to Las Vegas, you are immediately asked "So, you went to strip clubs huh?" because it is expected that people will go. The so called moral fabric is basically a material made of nets with holes all over.
The society that we are in currently exists in the way it is, not because of the inherent goodness of people, not because people in general are good but because of rule of law. Imagine for a moment, a world where you cannot be penalised for anything. Imagine a world where you cannot be jailed or punished. What would happen? If people don't fear accountability, if people don't fear being talked about, if people don't fear punishments, will they continue to live by following the rules of Dharma? Of righteousness and justice and ideals?
Chanakya said that straight trees are cut first. So to be a Rama in this modern world doesn't seem viable. One must therefore not live based on ideals that have been taught or handed to us, rather constantly learn from the surroundings and from others' experiences and adapt one's policies, beliefs and principles continuously. One must therefore attempt to be a Rama in Rama's world and a Krishna in Krishna's world and definitely not a Rama in Krishna's world for it is as incongruous as it is fatal.
Comments
This is one of your posts which is very close to my thought process. I have been thinking for a while about morality, ethics and stuff and how its getting passed on from generations. I liked the point where you said we need to continuously improve and develop a moral code independently. Now for the question, what if law dint exist? Am pretty sure most of us would have done something and be OK with it. Very tough one to answer.