A husband and wife can fight for hours and still reach no conclusion. The same applies to the political debates. These are two very common examples of debates taking us nowhere. All of us have opinions about different things. Our rights and wrongs differ from others'. While some may consider non-vegetarian food wrong, others may consider animal products and milk wrong, and still others may consider even potatoes and onions wrong. Everybody will have their own logic to support their argument.
But what's wrong with these divisions? The whole of Ramayana and Mahabharata is also a fight for Dharma. Dharma is also closely connected to what's right. When Rama and Krishna can fight for the right, why can't ordinary people like us fight for the right? I feel that it all depends on the frame of mind in which we think. For example, if somebody thinks from the frame of family, Gautama Siddhartha leaving his family and going to the forest in search of truth is wrong. On the other hand, if we look at it from the perspective of humanity, his search for truth has benefited millions of people even after thousands of years. Millions of people worldwide seek guidance from his words and follow the Vipassana technique he taught.
It all depends upon the frame within which we carry out the analysis. From the perspective of cruelty to animals, not only the non-vegetarian foods but also the milk products may be wrong. However, from a survival perspective, all these foods may be justified. Thus, when we debate, we probably just need to be clear about the perspective from which we are examining the subject matter. Unless we are on the same page, we will never reach an agreement. Moreover, reaching an agreement is never the purpose of any dialogue. It is to gain a different perspective so we can broaden our perspective.
However, there are certain things that are very fundamental to our existence. These are love, compassion, exploration, and freedom. Since all of us are made of the same consciousness, that's why we all share oneness, and that's why we love others and helping others is our fundamental nature. That's why compassion is also quite natural to us. We can't be happy when those around us aren't happy. We are born free. Consciousness is free to manifest in different forms, and that's why we too want to express ourselves freely. That's why freedom of expression has been recognised as one of our fundamental rights. Similarly, we want to explore since exploration is also the fundamental attribute of consciousness that all of us are made of.
That's why the rights and wrongs of Krishna are not the product of "I" or "ego" as against the rights and wrongs of ordinary human beings. Our rights and wrongs depend on our culture and society. They basically depend upon the frame we operate within. That's why they change from place to place, society to society, culture to culture and person to person. On the other hand, the rights and wrongs of Rama and Krishna are universal. They are basically around these fundamental attributes: love, compassion, freedom, and exploration. That's why Krishna supports the Pandavas against the Kauravas: their lives are driven by love, compassion, freedom, and exploration. In contrast, the lives of the Kauravas are driven by their limited frame of "ego". That may include their family members and certain elders. However, humanity as a whole can't grow unless our decisions are driven by love, compassion, freedom, and exploration. That's why Krishna supported the Pandavas. That's why Rama supported Vibhishana and Sugriva. That's the difference between the rights and wrongs within a limited frame and Dharma.
Comments