By : Oken Jeet Sandham/IFP
Religion wants to convert the human mind into a static state because that which is static is easily prone to exploitation. Yet this inertness is the very antithesis of the mind’s characteristics. A knotty problem! The founders of religions wanted human beings to shun their dynamic nature and out of fear or illusion, to unquestioningly accept certain specified ideas as the infallible truth. To prevent their shallow knowledge being exposed some so-called religious teachers avoided answering embarrassing questions by pretending to observe silence. This gets around all the fuss about answering questions and even gives the pretender the credit of appearing learned. In order to stifle the inquiring nature of the human mind, some of these charlatans go so far as to say that an inquisitive nature is very bad. So-called religious books seldom discuss such a thing as tolerance of other people’s religious beliefs. I don’t say that one should accept whatever is said by somebody, but surely non-acceptance and intolerance are not the same thing. Why this mania for refuting other people’s views anyway? Diverse opinions from philosophical books can be discussed without being disrespectful, and the philosophical and psychological loopholes of the arguments may be pointed out. But the attempt to cast aspersions on others is not indicative of high-mindedness. In the so-called books of religion there is a greater tendency to refute other people’s religious doctrines than to propagate one’s own ideas. Seeing all these machinations, genuine theologists and theosophists cannot hold religion in high esteem. People of wisdom say, that is, even if a child says something logical, it should be accepted, and even if the lotus-born Brahma (the mythological creator of the universe), says something illogical, it should be rejected like a straw. That is, it is not desirable to accept anything just because it is written in the scriptures, because if illogical sayings are accepted and acted upon, it results in the decline of Dharma. The derivative meaning of the word “Niiti” or morality is that which has in it the principle of leading. It is the starting point on the earth of spiritual practice, which is the persistent effort to establish communion with the Supreme Entity. But this is not the only significance of morality. Morality is endowed with the distinct faculty of leading human beings towards perfection. If morality fails to provide human beings with sufficient provision to move towards perfection, then it does not deserve to be called morality. Because morality must have an inspirational quality, it cannot afford to loose its dynamic nature by limiting itself to a specific time, place and person. Morality is thus a living force, the practice of which is capable of establishing human beings in supreme subtlety, in Supreme Cognition, through the medium of all-pervasive contemplation. However, there is a predetermined limit to the extent to which morality can lead human beings along the path of perfection. If morality can inspire people to reach that limit, then it is worthy of the name. Morality is not the dreamy fantasy of the idealist nor is it the means of fulfilling the mundane needs of the materialist. Rather it gives people the possibility of merging their atheistic objectivity into supra-mundane subjectivity. Human beings will have to start the habit of imbibing the spirit of morality from the very moment that the seed of activity is sewn in them. By activity I mean social activity. Judged in this light a child’s mind is the best receptacle for morality. But who will impart those moral training or education? Parents find fault with the teachers and the teachers in their turn argue that they cannot teach an individual child in a crowd of two or three hundred children. Although it is true that most parents are either uneducated or semi-educated, and it is not unjustifiable to expect that the teachers are well educated, yet it not proper to leave the responsibility for a child’s moral education on the teachers’ shoulders alone. Increasing the numbers of teachers in educational institutions may partially solve the problem of moral education, but the key to the solution lies with the parents themselves. Where parents are unfit to shoulder this responsibility, the teachers and well-wishers of society will have to come forward to demonstrate their greater sense of responsibility. Remember, when this morality, on which the very existence of humanity is based, leads human beings to the fullest expression of their finer human qualities, then alone is its practical value fully realized.
The Imphal Free Press
Religion wants to convert the human mind into a static state because that which is static is easily prone to exploitation. Yet this inertness is the very antithesis of the mind’s characteristics. A knotty problem! The founders of religions wanted human beings to shun their dynamic nature and out of fear or illusion, to unquestioningly accept certain specified ideas as the infallible truth. To prevent their shallow knowledge being exposed some so-called religious teachers avoided answering embarrassing questions by pretending to observe silence. This gets around all the fuss about answering questions and even gives the pretender the credit of appearing learned. In order to stifle the inquiring nature of the human mind, some of these charlatans go so far as to say that an inquisitive nature is very bad. So-called religious books seldom discuss such a thing as tolerance of other people’s religious beliefs. I don’t say that one should accept whatever is said by somebody, but surely non-acceptance and intolerance are not the same thing. Why this mania for refuting other people’s views anyway? Diverse opinions from philosophical books can be discussed without being disrespectful, and the philosophical and psychological loopholes of the arguments may be pointed out. But the attempt to cast aspersions on others is not indicative of high-mindedness. In the so-called books of religion there is a greater tendency to refute other people’s religious doctrines than to propagate one’s own ideas. Seeing all these machinations, genuine theologists and theosophists cannot hold religion in high esteem. People of wisdom say, that is, even if a child says something logical, it should be accepted, and even if the lotus-born Brahma (the mythological creator of the universe), says something illogical, it should be rejected like a straw. That is, it is not desirable to accept anything just because it is written in the scriptures, because if illogical sayings are accepted and acted upon, it results in the decline of Dharma. The derivative meaning of the word “Niiti” or morality is that which has in it the principle of leading. It is the starting point on the earth of spiritual practice, which is the persistent effort to establish communion with the Supreme Entity. But this is not the only significance of morality. Morality is endowed with the distinct faculty of leading human beings towards perfection. If morality fails to provide human beings with sufficient provision to move towards perfection, then it does not deserve to be called morality. Because morality must have an inspirational quality, it cannot afford to loose its dynamic nature by limiting itself to a specific time, place and person. Morality is thus a living force, the practice of which is capable of establishing human beings in supreme subtlety, in Supreme Cognition, through the medium of all-pervasive contemplation. However, there is a predetermined limit to the extent to which morality can lead human beings along the path of perfection. If morality can inspire people to reach that limit, then it is worthy of the name. Morality is not the dreamy fantasy of the idealist nor is it the means of fulfilling the mundane needs of the materialist. Rather it gives people the possibility of merging their atheistic objectivity into supra-mundane subjectivity. Human beings will have to start the habit of imbibing the spirit of morality from the very moment that the seed of activity is sewn in them. By activity I mean social activity. Judged in this light a child’s mind is the best receptacle for morality. But who will impart those moral training or education? Parents find fault with the teachers and the teachers in their turn argue that they cannot teach an individual child in a crowd of two or three hundred children. Although it is true that most parents are either uneducated or semi-educated, and it is not unjustifiable to expect that the teachers are well educated, yet it not proper to leave the responsibility for a child’s moral education on the teachers’ shoulders alone. Increasing the numbers of teachers in educational institutions may partially solve the problem of moral education, but the key to the solution lies with the parents themselves. Where parents are unfit to shoulder this responsibility, the teachers and well-wishers of society will have to come forward to demonstrate their greater sense of responsibility. Remember, when this morality, on which the very existence of humanity is based, leads human beings to the fullest expression of their finer human qualities, then alone is its practical value fully realized.
The Imphal Free Press
No comments:
Post a Comment