Pragmatism decides life

Yesterday, one person asked me a question: What’s the greatest virtue in your view? Please let me know. 

In response, without thinking for even a second, I wrote: Satyam vada; dharmam chara. The two famous Upanishadic convocation mantras for the student at the end of their stay at Gurukulam, to go back to their home: Tell the truth and follow (your respective) dharma (duty).

Then, when I went for my evening walk, as I was meditating on this subject, I thought that the answer should be “be truthful” rather than “speak the truth.” Because according to the Indian worldview, speaking the truth in every situation is not correct. Even such great virtues are also relative. Our (Indian) approach to life is more practical and realistic than idealistic. Of course, there are objective principles for one to strive to reach perfection; still, till the end of life, relativism is going to dominate even those objective principles. Remaining truthful to yourself should be the approach in life.

For example, Thiruvalluvar says:

பொய்மையும் வாய்மையிடத்த புரைதீர்த்த 

நன்மை பயக்கும் எனின்.—Kural, 292 

Falsehood may take the place of truthful word if blessing, free from fault, it can afford.—Kural 292.

Explanation: 

Even falsehood has the nature of truth if it confers a benefit that is free from fault. 

Though I have said that no benefit free of fault could come from any kind of ‘falsehood’. One cannot expect sweet fruit from a neem tree. Avvaiyar says, however one applies so many scented spices, still one cannot change the smell of garlic. (ஊட்டினும் பல்விரை உள்ளி கமழாது—Kondrai Vendan, 90)

However, there are so many stories to illustrate this point about Indian reality. The best one that comes to my mind is the way the ascetic Kausika had to go to hell by sticking to his ideology of telling only the truth and nothing but the truth. Here is the story:

…The Mahabharata mentions an ascetic, Kausika by name, who was known for his veracity but finally had to go to hell under the following circumstances. While he was engaged in penance in the forest, some robbers came upon him in hot pursuit of their would-be victims. Kausika, when asked, truthfully pointed out the direction in which they had gone. The robbers caught up with their intended victims and killed them, and the bad karma of the killing fell to Kausika’s share. So in the end, Kausika was thrown into hell. This story was narrated to Arjuna by Krishna as a warning against a purely formal approach to ethics.1

1. Sharma adds: 

…I would like to use it here to illustrate the point of how general good (lokasangraha) may require the sacrifice of personal morality, narrowly conceived.—Arvind Sharma, Hinduism for Our Times, Delhi, Oxford India Paperbacks, 2001, p.28.

Western people often warn their fellow people in the West who want to visit India about the prevalent immoral and unethical practices of Indians. Of course, there is some truth in this, and no one can deny this fact. Even we Indians are aware of this fact. We try our best to address this issue. Our religion warns of the severe consequences of remaining immoral and unethical but also of becoming adharmic. Yes, Indian morality is not limited only to some absolute ethics, but if one fails to uphold his or her dharma, then she or he will be considered adharmic. Even there is prayaschitta for moral lapses, but there is no escape from the consequences of adharma except for getting destroyed now and in the next life. Krishna says in the Gita (4:7-8) that He takes avatara to uphold dharma by removing adharma by destroying not only the adharma but also the adharmis (evil-doers), including those who violated ethical codes. At the same time, the same Indian worldview insists that there exists no absolute virtue or vice and everything depends upon time, place, and aim (idam, porul, and yeval). This doesn’t mean that we promote some kind of situation ethics. Still, the very concept of situation ethics is imported from the West to judge other traditions that do not approach life’s problems with rationalism. Two contradicting facts can coexist without tension in the Indian worldview. One can violate one’s own dharma both for survival and to help others by sacrificing personal morality. About this, the famous Mahabharata sloka says: Aapad kaletu…

आपत्काले तु संप्राप्ते शौचाचारं न चिन्तयेत्॥ 

स्वयं समुद्धरेत् पश्चात् स्वस्थो धर्मं समाचरेत्॥ 

…In other words, the dharmas for emergencies, when properly pursued, are subject to the same rewards as the dharmas observed in normal times. One’s spiritual fortunes are thereby preserved from the ravages of the contingencies of emergencies. An apaddharma, therefore, retains the transcendental aspect of following a righteously prescribed practice, while also allowing for a breach of the normative code when circumstances abrogate it.—Law during Emergencies apaddharma, Adam Bowles. Pp. 245-256, in Patrick Olivelle and Donald R. Davis, Jr. Eds. Hindu Law: A New History of Dharmasastra, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 255.

At the same time, it also warns not to do anything which will bring shame to oneself and to the family: 

ஈன்றாள் பசிகாண்பான் ஆயினுஞ் செய்யற்க 

சான்றோர் பழிக்கும் வினை.—Kural 656

Though one sees his mother starve, he should not act in a way the wise would treat with contempt. 

The overall point is that the Indian worldview upholds a more realistic approach to life, not some absolute principles. Of course, though our scriptures promote upholding idealistic, objective, absolute principles, they at the same time insist not to remain dogmatic about that idealism but be practical in life. 

I know in the West they also wrestled with the same issue based on their worldview and Scripture. But as their approach is more rationalistic than pragmatic, I am not sure how far we can give rationalistic interpretation on such a sensitive subject, as our life is more influenced by a mystic approach. For me, Prof. Matilal approaches this subject in a remarkably scholarly way for us to understand, and I highly recommend that book The Collected Essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal: Ethics and Epics, ed. Jonardon Ganeri, New Delhi, Oxford, 2002, and B.K. Matilal, Krsna: In Defence of a Devious Divinity, Essays in the Mahabharata, ed. In A. Sharma (Leider: E.S. Bill, 1991), pp. 401-18, for one to read, who, like me, also wrestles with this issue.

Remaining truthful to yourself is more important in India, even when one is forced to do unethical and immoral activities. He or she acted according to their conscience and need, not strictly following some absolute, unchanging, dogmatic ethical codes or moral teachings. 

There is no point in saying which one is correct and which one is not. Ultimately, the same Kural also says:

தன்நெஞ் சறிவது பொய்யற்க பொய்த்தபின் 

தன்நெஞ்சே தன்னைச் சுடும்.—Kural 293 

Let not a man knowingly tell a lie; for after he has told the lie, his mind will burn him (with the memory of his guilt).—Kural 293

English Meaning: 

Speak not a word which false thy own heart knows. Self-kindled fire within the false one’s spirit glows.

So we can RELATIVELY say that one’s own CONSCIENCE decides what is ethics, of course keeping the welfare of others, not personal gain. 

The reason for me to share this using so many words (confusing others and even getting myself confused) is that when I give some kind of quick and instant answer to certain questions, it won’t help that person. I have to think carefully before even giving a relatively careful answer, as there exists no absolute answer to any issue in life. Idealism is good, but pragmatism decides life.

When I read any book on any subject by any Western scholars, only one question comes to my mind: why this much rationalization? Be it any subject: religion, spirituality, politics, economics, sociology, etc. I think they cannot escape from this trap of ‘rationalization’ that they inherited from Greek philosophical influence. Whereas when it comes to the East, particularly India, our approach to any subject is based on mysticism. Though I am not sure how this very Western word ‘mysticism’ could be translated into any Indian language. But as I understand the spirit of this word, that too in a mystical way, I have to use it to express my thought, again in a Western language.

Particularly the Christians often point this out by quoting the famous teaching of Muktinath: ‘Simply let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No

,” “No”; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.’ (Mt. 5:37). From this teaching, they develop what they call ‘Situation Ethics,’ which does not allow any kind of excuse in any circumstance but expects the follower to say only ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ But such an answer never satisfies an Indian mind, including my mind. In our experience, we know in our life it won’t work, or as they say, it is highly impractical. That’s why we have many qualifying factors and follow only those which satisfy our mystic approach. 

But I think even the famous Muktivedic statement, often quoted by Christians, has never been explained in its original context. The overall teaching of Muktinath should be seen in the light of what I call his Hindu and Buddhist background. Just now, I was reading these verses from an online search:  

“Simply let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No”; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Mt. 5:37) 

If I understand the context correctly, the emphasis is on the ‘evil one,’ namely the Devil, who entices people into saying both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ simultaneously, trapping them into not remaining true to themselves. According to my understanding, instead of giving a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, one should consider the situation and decide accordingly. In the same Muktiveda, we find several instances where lies were told to protect others or oneself—for example, Abraham claiming Sarah as his sister and Rebecca hiding the spies. If the consequences only affect me, I can confidently give a straightforward ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ However, when others’ lives, safety, security, or interests are at stake, it is essential to consider the situation rather than rigidly adhering to an absolute principle of ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

Because for me, though this particular statement is found in Muktiveda, His overall teaching is mainly mystical. That’s why no one can put Muktiveda in the Western cage. Rather, what we see today is the Western captivity of Muktiveda. I think the time has come to set Muktiveda free from Western captivity. The one who can do this is not the Western world but India alone. When I say India, I am talking about Indian mysticism, which has already started influencing many people in the West.