Are we the roles playing in this world, or are we the souls who are capable of playing different roles? This is a fundamental question because all subsequent questions, such as those about morality, responsibility, guilt, right, wrong, and the like, flow from it. Generally, while living our lives, we take guidance from our roles. If we are in a family, we want to protect our family. Similarly, we define different roles and rights and wrongs associated with them.
I was reading Jurisprudence yesterday for my law examination, and I came across a beautiful concept called the "Grudge Informer Dilemma," proposed by the German legal philosopher Gustav Radbruch. A lady passed on the information to the Nazi government, and the husband was executed by the Nazi's. Post the change of the Hitler regime, a prosecution was launched against her, and she argued that she complied with the law of the land, and that's why she should not be held guilty. Radbruch argued that when positive law reaches an "intolerable level of injustice" (unerträgliche Ungerechtigkeit), it loses its validity, and law must give way to justice.
That means morality is above law, and sometimes even the law made by the state may also not be moral. Now the question arises, who is going to decide what's moral and what's immoral? When Krishna asked Arjuna to kill Bhishma while hiding behind Shikandi, knowing very well that Bhishma would not be able to hit Shikandi, when Rama killed Vali while hiding behind a tree, when Rama sent pregnant Sita to the forest because a person levied certain allegations against her while knowing very well that she passed the Agnipariksha, can these be regarded as acts of morality? Who is going to decide what morality is?
I think that's where the question of "soul" and "role" becomes very crucial. This question has been handled in detail in the Indian scriptures. If we see Ram or Krishna as a warrior fighting the battle against Vali and Bhishma, respectively, they definitely violated the rules of the battle. If we see them as roles, their acts were immoral. Similarly, if we see the act of Rama as a husband, his role in sending pregnant Sita to the forest alone was definitely immoral. However, that's where the Indian mythology goes beyond the role and connects to the soul.
Morality can be understood in a limited frame. When we see the fight between Vali and Sugriva, the killing of Vali by Ram, hiding behind the tree, may initially appear to violate the rules of the battle. Similarly, Arjuna hitting Bhishma in the shadow of Shikhandi may seem immoral at first. However, let's try to expand the frame of awareness. Now, let's look at these incidents in the context of their historical background. Vali deprived Sugriva of all his rights and forcefully took his wife. Vali was not ready to listen to Sugriva's explanation. Vali has a boon: if anyone fights him, he gains half his powers. In this context, it is almost impossible to defeat Vali in a face-to-face fight. So, what is morality here? If an actor on stage gets so lost in his role that he starts disturbing the whole stage and the roles of the other actors, what will the director do? He will ask that fellow to leave the stage. That's what Krishna did when Bhishma got so obsessed with his vow that he forgot Dharma.
In fact, the Indian scriptures go further to investigate this problem. They will provide details about these people's past lives and identify the root cause that set in motion the entire episode. At the centre would always be ego or ignorance. The Indian scriptures would demonstrate that the root cause of all suffering in life is the ignorance of the fact that "we are souls," and that's why we get so obsessed with the "roles we play". That's why, time and again, God has to take incarnation to make people realise that they are souls, not the roles they play. Now, coming to Sita, when we look at Ram as the husband, his actions seem very cruel. However, it is also a fact that Ram and Sita both came to give a message to humanity regarding the "art of living". How best to perform the role on the stage? When Sita was sent by Rama into the forest, she did not give up; rather, she raised Luv and Kush in the best possible manner. Luv and Kush, in fact, gave a good fight to Ram and his entire army. How could the director have shown the world the strength of a woman, had Sita not been put to such a rigorous test?
To understand morality in a larger sense, we have to look beyond the frame. We generally get obsessed with the present frame. We also have to look at the centre from which our decisions come. Are they coming from the awareness of "being a soul", or are they coming from the "ego"? That decides everything. Whenever we have an understanding of ourselves as different from others, our decisions will generally be ego-centric. On the other hand, whenever we realise that we are the soul and that everybody else is also a soul, and that it is in everyone's best interest that each one of us plays his role to the best of his potential and ability, our decisions will be the most moral. Morality without that understanding of oneness may be mere attachment. However, a person attached to a role may find this absurd because his ego will blind him. Not so that Ravan was stupid. In fact, he would have been far more intelligent than most of us, yet his ego made him blind. That's why our biggest duty towards ourselves is to stay aware.
Comments