The Oxford Dictionary defines morality as 'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.' The basis for our code of morality in the West would seem to be The Ten Commandments of Moses, which, according to the Books of Moses, were given to the Israelites as religious and moral precepts to be followed by their people. They also are recognized by Christians and Moslems, in different ways, differing orders and to greater or lesser degrees.
If all people who believe the Commandments to be the words of God were to follow them, it would be a much safer and friendlier world to live in. Yet of course this isn't the case. And not simply because the Commandments themselves are too lofty to be followed perfectly--i.e. one might find oneself in the middle of coveting a neighbor's wife and his cattle before one even knows it, then taking the name of the Lord in vain in reaction to this discovery, and there you're two or three down already. But indeed, there are other parts to the writings accepted as the word of God that are picked and chosen by various groups to support their choices in the world that seem, in practice, to trump the original Ten.
I was reminded of this when I was sent a statement by a popular radio personality and a response reputedly (but mistakenly) attributed to a college professor.
The radio doctor was quoted as saying that, 'as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.'
The respondent, in an open letter, asked advice of the radio doctor as to how we are correctly to follow the other rules and laws put forth in Exodus and Leviticus, the Second and Third Books of Moses, which laws tell us that we may possess slaves, we may sell our children into slavery, we must not touch a menstruating woman, that a man or woman caught committing adultery should be stoned to death, etc. (For the full story of the supposed comment/response, click here.)
There are many other strictures and codes in the Bible that many of us break regularly, like cutting our hair or wearing clothes made of more than one type of fabric (both of which are expressly forbidden), and of course none of us are gathering together to stone the scoff-laws of our community. This would be absurd, right? But this is the problem with moral codes. Which part do we pay attention to? Which are important to follow and which are outdated? How do we decide when to follow 'thou shalt not kill,' and when to take up arms to protect our nation and our family? I may have the most loving family one could imagine, but if my partner and I are not married, according to the Bible, we are committing adultery and should be stoned. To death. Who decides these things? The clergy? Our parents? Our parents' parents?
The problem with the concepts 'right and wrong,' and 'good and bad' is that on which side we fall is dependent entirely on our point of view; and our point of view is dependent upon how we are identified. Man or woman, Muslim or Jew, Catholic or Fundamentalist Christian, African American or American Indian, etc., etc., etc.
Even something we all could agree upon--that it's wrong to kill innocents--implies that there are those it is okay to kill, and how many opinions on that could we find if we were to poll the population of the world?
The Vedic world view differs from the Western cultural paradigm in a very significant way. There is no idea of right or wrong; rather, there is an understanding of the laws of nature as expressed through one of three 'operations' occurring in nature: creation operator, maintenance operator and destruction operator. Creation is what nature is about, always. That which is still relevant within nature is maintained. That which has outlived its relevance is destroyed. The umbilicus connecting mother to child is a perfect example of how things more from one stream of nature to another. The umbilicus of course is the epitome of creation, feeding life from mother to fetus. It is maintained as essential to the continued growth of the fetus up until the child is born, at which point the it loses all relevance and becomes in fact a source of danger, for if not destroyed sometime soon after the child is born, it can cause death to the mother or the child or both. Never is it good or bad. It simply is.
Creation, Maintenance, Destruction. As exponents of nature, expressive of nature's evolution, we always are meant to pay attention to creation. That which is still relevant to life will be maintained around us, and that which is no longer relevant will be destroyed. We don't look at a situation and ask what is the right thing to do. Rather, we put ourselve in the situation and, through our fine level of feeling, follow the course of action that is most charming, least harmful, most creative, least destructive, most loving, least separative, and always remembering the man who most recently embodied the Shankara lineage of the Vedic teaching, Guru Deva, was known far and wide as 'the avatar of compassion,' the very embodiment of compassion. To follow his lead is always to remember that I am a flawed and fallible human, as are you, as is everyone, and that our knee-jerk response to each other is rarely the best or highest, regardless of which moral code it may seem to be a part of. We find compassion for ourselves when we fall short of our best, and compassion for others when they fall short of our expectations of them.
And of course the Ten Commandments are always looming there in the background for us to check our work against, if ever we become confused.
Today I will do what is right because it feels right, not because someone told me.
 Allegory of Europe, statue in front of the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House, New York Harbor, NY NY
All material copyright JeffKoberMeditation |
