|
It was good to see a scholar tackling the uncertain area of morality
in Vaishnavism, as did Ms Chatterjee with her essay, 'The Chaitanya
School: Role of Ethics', in the last issue of this journal. I found
her essay thought provoking and a valuable contribution to what
I feel is an area requiring much discussion. Although, as Ms Chatterjee
rightly pointed out, Vaishnavism holds that 'spiritual progress
is hardly possible without moral endeavour', the first requirement
being of course the 'four regulative principles', it is still somewhat
hazy, especially amongst ISKCON followers, exactly what our code
of ethics should be. Do we follow varnashrama dharma or not?
Are Vaishnavas transcendental to all external designations and thus
the duties pertaining to them? How much is a Vaishnava serving Krishna
to be bound by codes of worldy morality?
Of course, one would expect a Vaishnava to display the highest
moral character, and indeed Ms Chatterjee's first point was that
one who surrenders completely to the Lord will thereby attain similar
qualities as those possessed by the Lord. In other words, by virtue
of their surrender to God, Vaishnavas should naturally evince all
godly qualities. She cites some of the many scriptural verses supporting
this point, describing how a genuine sadhu or saintly person will
evince superlative standards of morality.
From our experience in ISKCON, however, we have seen that such
morality is sometimes lacking amongst our members. Even though we
are a society dedicated to the service of God, we still have to
deal with, from time to time, cases of moral turpitude. From my
own experience as a temple leader and National Secretary of the
Society in the UK, I have seen many such cases, ranging from disputes
over property ownership, to sexual transgressions, accusations of
deceit, and well as various other things. When these instances arise
we often find ourselves dealing somewhat arbitrarily. That is to
say, we do not refer to any systematic codes of behaviour. Of course,
where there are direct and obvious statements made in our scriptures
then these are followed, but for the most part such directions are
few, and more often than not it is left up to a group of devotees,
or perhaps even just the temple leader, to arbitrate.
Obviously, there is a need for a clear set of guidelines to enable
us to deal consistently with misbehaviour in the Society. Every
society has its laws and codes of ethics, but in ISKCON this is
presently lacking, despite our being a society based upon the tenets
of scripture. These days, of course, morality is becoming something
more dependent upon circumstance and vox populi than anything
else, the so called 'moral relativism'. But all laws and moral codes
were originally derived from scripture. The Ten Commandments, for
example, are the original basis of law in Christian countries. All
scriptures offer comprehensive moral guidelines which are still
followed to a greater or lesser degree in most civilised societies.
However, in ISKCON we have no systemised code derived from our own
scriptures, the Vedas, and are thus often solving our moral conflicts
either by expedience, that is, moral relativism, or by a mix of
whatever Vedic morality we may have imbibed, along with our previous
training in other moral codes, perhaps Christianity or some other
religion.
The Vedas do provide many moral guidelines, although, as I mentioned
earlier, there are not so many in the Vaishnava scriptures such
as Bhagavad-gita and Shrimad Bhagavatam. Again, this
is because it is assumed that from the very beginning a Vaishnava
will already be on the highest platform of morality, indeed transcendence.
He simply has no interest in mundane pleasures. Srila Prabhupada
sometimes made the point that Krishna in the Bhagavad-gita
does not tell Arjuna not to steal, or to covet another's wife. Why?
Because for a man like Arjuna there was no question of such behaviour,
but what do we do if we find that aspiring 'Arjunas' in the Society
still have such tendencies? Although Ms Chatterjee makes the point
correctly that Vaishnavas are transcendental to mundane morality,
this also implies that, as with Arjuna, they are beyond and above
any moral misbehaviour. If we are seeing the latter then the assumption
of transcendence cannot be made, and we need to think about the
application of moral codes.
In applying Vedic moral guidelines, however, there are some knotty
problems. For example, one of the most famous and comprehensive
texts of morality is the Manu Samhita. I often hear ISKCON
devotees citing it, and in fact in the Bhagavad-gita, Shrila
Prabhupada says that executive leaders in society should be familiar
with this book (Bg 3.21 purport). But how do we apply it now? So
much of that text seems to only have application to a time long
past and an entirely different culture from that of today. Parts
of it would even be impossible to apply as it calls for punitive
measures which are simply not acceptable in today's society. Nor
do we know if these measures should be applied anyway, as it is
clear from studying Vedic moral texts that they have varying applications
according to different times, places and circumstances. Although
it may sound similar, this is not the 'moral relativism' as it is
known today. Vedic morality, unlike modern moral relativism, is
always based upon scripture, but there needs to be a skilled interpreter
of the scripture who is capable of applying it appropriately. In
classical Vedic society this would of course be the king and his
ministers, advised by well-read brahmana counsellors. Such persons
are in rather short supply at the moment.
Perhaps the biggest problem though, is that the Manu Samhita,
and indeed the entire system of Vedic morality, depends upon the
division of society into varnas and ashramas, the traditional occupational
and spiritual castes. There are different moral codes for all of
the different castes. But again that is hardly acceptable today,
as it conjures up ideas of enforced casteism, leading to the abuse
and exploitation of the so-called lower classes. That is the present
experience in India, at least. The remains of the Vedic varnashrama
system as it is seen today in India is not something anyone would
want to emulate quickly. If varnashrama is to be re-introduced
in ISKCON or anywhere else, it would have to be in a quite different
way to India today, and it would need to take into account the reasons
why the system in India became degraded into its present lamentable
condition.
Clearly there are no quick and easy solutions to the problem of
finding a workable code of ethics based upon the Vedas. Perhaps,
just as Shrila Prabhupada adapted even the Vaishnava practises to
suit his followers in today's society, someone or some group of
persons will need to adapt the system of Vedic morality from books
like the Manu Samhita, and other such standard texts.
We can start by researching ISKCON's canon to see what its founder
Shrila Prabhupada said on the matter. From my own research I see
at least that he frequently calls for the application of varnashrama
dharma. Also, as with the above cited quote from the Bhagavad-gita,
he does expect that there will be moral guidance given by the leaders
in society, based upon Vedic texts. And from our own experience,
as I began by saying, we are already seeing the need. A need which,
in my view, will be felt more and more strongly as ISKCON grows.
In conclusion then, whilst I think Ms Chatterjee has made some
good points about the morality of Vaishnavas, I also think we need
to take a more realistic view of our present society of Krishna
devotees, at least ISKCON. I feel she has dismissed varnashrama
dharma too lightly and I would like to see more discussion on
how this system can be implemented properly in ISKCON. I would also
like to see us trying to understand texts such as the Manu Samhita
and how they can be applied today. In that way I would hope we could
provide a working example of something better than moral relativism;
a framework of ethics and morality based upon the teachings of the
Vedas.
Krishna Dharma dasa
|
Print
this page |
