Truth, Goodness, Beauty are the highest virtues, the lofty peaks that we aspire to reach while we climb the slippery slope. Yes, indeed the way to virtue is slippery. Virtues are ideals but in practice we may need to dilute them. But the trap is that we may tend to dilute them to the extent of suiting them to our whims. This would lead to no personal growth. The other extreme is that we may follow them too stringently to the point of obsession. This would adversely affect the well-being of oneself and others. For instance a businessperson may dilute the virtues of honesty and fair practice so much that she will end up self-assured that her malpractices are justified. On the other extreme an adolescent, for instance, may practise non-violence or tolerance too religiously and end up being bullied and lose their sense of freedom. So where do we draw the line of practising and refraining a virtue? And who draws this demarcation?
**
The answer is we ourselves draw the line of balance and rather keep altering it time and again as we continue learning more from various life incidences. We draw the line or rather we should draw the line where our convictions meet reality. Virtues like truth, honesty, goodness, righteousness, non-violence et al are prioritized differently by different individuals. Some may place truth as the highest virtue while others may choose non-violence or compassion while still others may dedicate their lives to serve people. When we choose an action or a course of action over the other, it reflects the virtues we hold higher in life.
**
Making such choices isn’t simple because a network of factors and events surround it. For instance consider this: Siddhartha Gautama must have faced a dilemma of choosing between virtues before renouncing his wife, Yasodhara and son, Rahul. Obviously he could renounce because he placed the virtue of seeking ‘Truth’ higher than the virtue of keeping the family ties intact. The other side of the story is that when Siddhartha returned after 12 years to pay a visit to Yasodhara, she complained him for having renounced her and their son. This reflects that she placed ‘family loyalty’ and family ties higher than seeking Nirvana at least during those moments of re-union. Both seem to be right from their own perspective. The beauty of their relationship lies in the fact that both were understanding enough to respect the virtue the other held and at the same time pursue their own.
**
Buddha chose to ask her forgiveness in spite of having attained Nirvana and Yasodhara later chose to become a bikkhuni (nun) in spite of having complaints against his renunciation. Yasodhara is an example that teaches that virtues aren’t rigid. One can forgo or alter those virtues that stand in the way of our personal growth and aspire for those which promote it. Buddha on the other hand exemplifies that no matter how much or what one attains, one should always respect the other person’s perspective. Buddha’s humility accommodates all virtues.
**
Two starkly opposite virtues may be chosen in two similar situations as per the demand of time, context, state of mind, and the end motive. This is to say that virtues are situation sensitive. Consider these two situations of fighting against injustice. Gandhi’s choice of non-violence during the Ahmedabad textile mill satyagraha and Champaran satyagraha was apt and justified. First because it made appeal to the conscience and sense of justice ( (Intrinsic value) in the oppressor.. Secondly because this experiment of non-violence in the sphere of politics was succeeding (Extrinsic value).
**
But in a similar situation of fighting against injustice, in the mythology of Mahabharata, Krishna prompted Arjuna to fight against the Kauravas and not pursue the course of non-violence. According to Krishna, non-violence was not the virtue to be held in that particular situation right before the war. Many could argue against this and they are free to do so. But the additional point one should take note of is that a situation may demand you to act contrary to your held belief/virtue. Though Krishna himself had gone to the court of king Drutarashtra (father of Duryodhana) as a messenger of peace to avoid the Mahabharata, yet on the battlefield when Arjuna started to quiver with doubts, Krishna asked him not to escape the war but rather face it with valor. Krishna’s choice was ‘courage’ over ‘non-violence’ (besides many other spiritual reasons) because the situation demanded it. While Gandhi chose non-violence against the oppressor, Krishna explained courage and dharma (duty) to be the right actions for Arjuna. Virtues must be carefully chosen as per situation.
**
Another significant question is: why at all should one choose to be virtuous and not vice? There are different ways of looking at it. One perspective is that virtue should be upheld because it pays to be virtuous at least in the long run. This is the utilitarian approach. A reward is expected at the end. But in any case reward is not an assured guarantee. Another is a deterrent perspective. If we choose vice over virtue, we shall meet vice. It is like saying, “As you sow so shall you reap”. This seems merely like the reverse side of the previous perspective. The third perspective is that virtues should be practised because they are inherently good. Virtues cannot be treated as a means but rather an end in themselves that give us an opportunity to raise ourselves above one’s own self.
**
Nilesh P Megnani is a professor of philosophy who teaches not just the academics of his subject but the purpose of it to his students. He writes whenever he feel inspired and believes life is workable hypothesis and love, the elusive potion that might transform humanity Connect with on neelvijayalaxmi@gmail.com
**Art by Reema Moudgil
Thanks Reema for the art. Beautiful piece. checked it today.
it’s an age old saying “agar jooth ek achee udyshye ke liye bola jaye to usme koi burai nahi noti”. So virtue n vice are not absolute but decided always in relation with realities of time n situation. Virtues r just means n purity of means r irrelevant in relation with achievement of good ends and that is what mahabharat is all about. Choice before Krishna was never between ‘good n evil’ but was between ‘lesser-evil n greater-evil’. He used all kind of deceits, broke promises, spoke lies, mede a woman stand before bhism, urged yudhister to speak a lie to kill dronachrays and other dubious means to kill karan, duryodhan n others. Arjun seems to be a man of virtues who says “I wd rather beg than to kill my own relatives,frnds n teachers” and Bhagwad Gita is about 100 reasons to persuade Arjun to wage a war.
And i don’t think Gandhi’s nonviolence was really an attitude. It was rather a strategy used againt british govt who were liberal enough not to use power n force against 1000ds of people who were protesting silently. And the moment british left india nonviolence also disappeared. With freedom came freedom to kill all over india. And we saw a really cruel, ugly, barbarious kind of violence. People,children were burned alive in trains n buses. It was worse than hitler’s con.camps n gas chambers.