DIMENSIONS OF GOOD AND EVIL The Moral Universe and Vaiñëava Philosophy by Suhotra Swami nétir asmi jigéñatäm “Of those who seek victory I am morality.” ( Bhagavad-gétä 10.38) INTRODUCTION We experience ourselves subject to conditions imposed by nature. We experience ourselves subject to laws, natural and man-made, that govern our interaction with other living entities. Finally we experience ourselves subject to the disposition of our bodies and minds. In short, matter shapes life into these three dimensions of experience, which in Sanskrit are termed ädhidaivika, ädhibhautika and ädhyätmika. Western philosophy calls them the macrocosm, mesocosm and microcosm. The first is the vast, all-enveloping natural universe. The second is the “middle” ( meso ) universe of our relations with other sentient beings. The third is a private universe known inwardly by each individual. The Vedic teachings point to a transcendental dimension experienced by the soul liberated from the powers of matter. But were it not for our values, what sense could we make of these dimensions of experience? Experience is but a moment-by-moment presentment of choices in the world and in ourselves. In making choices, we rely on our values. In this book I propose five dimensions of value. 1 The first is the dimension of sensory value. This is "the school of hard knocks." Once as a boy I put my hand into the back of a radio and received a shock. After that, I was leery of handling electronic equipment. We might call the experience of an electric shock "a matter of fact." Within the dimension of sensory value we also experience ”matters of taste"--for example, that I prefer strawberries over gooseberries. Often matters of taste are more important to people than matters of fact. It is a matter of fact that cigarette smoking is injurious to health, yet millions of people value the taste of cigarettes over the fact that they are smoking themselves into an early grave. Sensory value--the dimension of facts and tastes—is surpassed by the dimension of intuitive value. Here we find the conscience. In serving my sensory values, I may hurt another person. His suffering troubles my conscience. Despite my success in sense gratification, I still feel I’ve done wrong. Also from the intuitive dimension come hunches like, “I think I can trust this person,” or “This doesn't feel right to me.” Beyond this is the dimension of rational value. Here we decide things by calling upon values we've learned from authorities: parents, teachers, sacred scriptures, legal, ethical and moral codes. In other words, the logic of law decides right from wrong, correcting if necessary our sensory and intuitive feelings. Then there is the dimension of spiritual (or idealistic) value. Spirit wants liberation from evil: sin, corruption and enslavement to materialism. The senses, intuition, and even the laws of reason may tremble at the call to overturn evil, because that could mean a death sentence. But high ideals take command of persons with strong spirit: we know well the stories of brave men and women who embraced martyrdom for the cause of freedom. At last there is the dimension of devotional value. Out of love and devotion for another, a person may let the values of the senses, intuition and reason go unheeded. For love, one may even ignore the ideal of liberation so dear to the spirit. We judge three kinds of experience by five kinds of value. The words “good” and “evil” indicate what our judgements are ultimately about. For example, in the devotional dimension of value, many possible objects of love can be considered: mother, father, the family dog, the girl next door, a Hollywood film star, a pop music idol, V.I. Lenin, the goddess Athena, Church of the SubGenius messiah J.R. “Bob” Dobbs, and so on. Which of these objects of devotion are really good? Even a simple question like this seems to many people to have no certain answer. They find the interplay between the dimensions of experience and the dimensions of value baffling in complexity and instability. People use the word “good” so lightly, but when asked to pin down what it means, often they either come up empty-handed or reach for equally vague generalities like “love,” “truth” and “beauty.” This book defines goodness as virtue. Coming from Latin virtus which translates as “strength”, the word virtue indicates a healthy, wholesome and chaste relationship to the world, other living entities and one's own self. It is the mission of every human being to perfect his or her virtue. Perfect virtue is the soul's victory over the powers of matter, which threaten to delude the soul into identifying with the material body, its lusts and its hatreds. Perfect virtue ushers the victorious soul into the dimension of transcendental experience, and attracts the mercy of the supremely virtuous Original Person. In the following verse, Lord Viñëu praises the virtues of His pure devotee, King Påthu. varaà ca mat kaïcana mänavendra våëéñva te ’haà guëa-çéla-yantritaù nähaà makhair vai sulabhas tapobhir yogena vä yat sama-citta-varté My dear King, I am very captivated by your elevated qualities and excellent behavior, and thus I am very favorably inclined toward you. You may therefore ask from Me any benediction you like. One who does not possess elevated qualities and behavior cannot possibly achieve My favor simply by performance of sacrifices, severe austerities or mystic yoga. But I always remain equipoised in the heart of one who is also equipoised in all circumstances. ( Çrémad-Bhägavatam 4.20.16) “Evil,” opposed to virtue, means vice. It is a state of spiritual weakness in which the soul, fallen from the grace of the Lord, comes under the strict control of matter. An evil person's attitude toward the world, living entities and the self is unhealthy and impure. The phrase “dimensions of good and evil” is summarized by the term “the moral universe.” What I am driving at here is that we cannot divorce morality from the objective nature of the world. By way of the dimensions of experience and value, we measure good and evil. These measurements indicate a cosmic moral order, no less than measurements of length, breadth and width indicate the shape and size of the room I am in. One often hears the argument that the moral order is merely a private state of mind, not a state of the universe. For example, one person of puritanical mentality may estimate the disease AIDS to be good, since it forces moderation on licentious people. Another person of humanistic mentality may estimate AIDS a great evil. But in fact, goes the argument, AIDS is coldly indifferent to notions of good and evil. So too is the universe as a whole. In reply, it must be admitted that my private estimate of the good and evil of events around me may be wrong, just as my private estimate of the shape and size of my room may be wrong. But that my estimates are wrong does not mean that the universe is without a moral dimension—just as it does not mean that my room is without shape and size. As much as mankind is able to accurately calibrate the facts of the world on a true scale of moral value, that much can we know the moral universe as an objective fact. Today, scientists try to fit the facts of the world to reductionism—a value-neutral simplicity believed to be at the heart of nature's complexity. But prior to the seventeenth century, civilized people worldwide associated macro-, meso-, and microcosmic phenomena with values that begin with absolute good at the top of the scale, descending to total evil at the bottom. And so it was that the science of classical and medieval Europe, upholding the moral dimension of the universe, tried to account for things by assigning them a grade of moral worth. 2 From the Padma Puräëa we get the Vedic scale of universal morality. dvau bhüta-sargau loke ’smin daiva äsura eva ca viñëu-bhaktaù småto daiva äsuras tad-viparyayaù Throughout the universe, there are but two classes of living beings—the godly ( devas ) and the demonic ( asuras ). The godly are devoted to Viñëu, the Supreme Person, who is opposed by the demonic. As made clear in the next quotation, it is very difficult for a human being lacking high moral qualifications to perceive the devas who dwell in higher cosmic dimensions. This means virtue expands one's perception of the universe. Vice reduces it. As was noted earlier, King Påthu was perfectly virtuous by dint of being a pure devotee of the Supreme Lord. He was therefore fully cognizant of the moral dimension of the universe and the extraordinary beings who dwell there— for example the four Kumäras, to whom Påthu spoke this verse: aho äcaritaà kià me maìgalaà maìgaläyanäù yasya vo darçanaà hy äséd durdarçänäà ca yogibhiù My dear great sages, auspiciousness personified, it is very difficult for even the mystic yogés to see you. Indeed, you are very rarely seen. I do not know what kind of pious activity I performed for you to grace me by appearing before me without difficulty. (Çrémad-Bhägavatam 4.22.7) King Påthu is an example of a person utterly devoted to Viñëu. That person is called a Vaiñëava. The Sanskrit word vaiñëava means “like Viñëu.” Hence, like Viñëu, the Vaiñëavas are lustrous with transcendental virtue, which is termed çuddha-sattva (pure goodness). Vaiñëava philosophy is the body of knowledge that emanates from Viñëu as the purely sattvic portion of the Vedic scriptures.