Some moments create confusions and some others are void and
simple, inspiring and enlightening. Right now feeling much of these in a mix.
Life has multiplicity of choices, yet one hardly has a choice than to live
life. But do we really live life or just pretend to do it on pretext of
Falsity.
Adi Shankaracharya said-
''ब्रह्मसत्यं
जगत् मिथ्या, जीवो
ब्रह्मेव नापर:| ''
i.e. Brahm is ONLY absolute reality but then it is also
anirvachaniya (cannot be described). But Jagat sure is mithya (neither real nor
unreal) i.e. false appearance of Brahm. Brahm is absolute truth,
goodness-in-itself. Jagat is not really so. Even if there is really no Brahm,
yet this concept does give an insight of what ought to be. What is moral and
ethical and what is practised ostensibly. Jagat is full of false appearances
because of inherent material disposition in it. May be matter-in-itself is
nothing bad, but ownership of matter is an evil and it propagates further
evil. In some way, Communism is not all
wrong. What is Ethics? What is Morality? What is Right? These are too difficult
questions to answer, but whole life depends on it. So they seek an answer since
the day mankind are on earth. Reason tries to search for an answer to these
questions, but are they really worth a quest of reason at all?
Reason can only apply to reasonable fields which are
empirical in nature i.e. based upon observations and experiments. What can’t
ever be experienced, can’t ever be truly rationalised. But this does not answer
our questions. Philosophy has been, since time immemorial a quest in search of
answers to these questions. We can keep on finding facts, principles, laws of
nature and improve upon our scientific pursuit; but what will a scientific
society do without moral individuals. Morality needs a definition. To be true to
it, Morality is beyond definition and any definition of morality limits it and
hence is incomplete. Yet for the sake of defining it, it must be defined. So
the quest went on... Here I am not going to enlist those definitions.
But I
have a question-
Have you ever defined Morality for yourself? Think again,
Have you defined morality or have you defined limitations to it? Well, Defining
Morality is as important as practising it. And if you claim to be a moral
individual, define morality for yourself. Why? May be once you do, you will
find answers to certain questions like why individuals turn immoral when they
do? Why we do what we never meant to?
Now one might doubt, and a reasonable one, that an
individual definition of morality won’t go far in best interests of society.
Yes, it won’t but it will certainly reach somewhere and once it reaches where
it will; the path ahead would be easier than as it is today. It is easy for a
state to regulate it’s citizens by rules and procedures prescribed by it but is
it not breach of freedom of will of an individual? Solution lies in the
question.
A state is made up of it’s citizens and if we, as
citizens, choose to be moral, it would
be far easier to abandon inhuman regulatory acts which breach our freedom of
will. No point begging the question all time regarding conflictual situations
of all types – individual, social, political, religious or economic. It’s time
we should justify our stand one-by-one, one step at a time. Justice has long
been delayed to many of us. It is our due to them, it should be our ultimate
concern. God will not come on earth to give them their due. The earth has well
been ours for exploitation of resources, it is equally ours to make a fine
balance and to do justice towards all.
To conclude, There is a Doha by Kabir-
“हद चले सो
मानवा, बेहद चले
सो साध|
हद-बेहद दोऊ
तजै, ताकर मता
अगाध||”
(Ordinary men follow the limited, the saints follow the
unlimited. But the deeper minds go beyond both of them.)
