Ordinary VS Higher Morality
Kumbhakarna, a brother of Ravana, didn’t approve of Ravana’s act of abducting Seeta. He believed that if Ravana wanted revenge of Lakshamana’s insult to Rakshasi princess Surpanakha, he should have challenged Rama and Lakshamana personally and fought a one-on-one battle to avenge. But when Ravana sees danger ahead and asks Kumbhakarna for help, in the end he doesn’t deny his brother. Despite knowing that he was protecting the wrong doing, he went ahead to fight for Ravana, because Ravana was his brother and his king. But the same didn’t happen with Vibheeshana. Knowing that Ravana had done wrong, he tried to persuade Ravana to return back Seeta and apologise to Ram. When Ravana goes to war with Ram, Vibhishana chose not to support him despite he being his brother. So who out of Kumbhakarna and Vibheeshana was right? C. Rajgopalachari gives a wonderful explanation in brief:
Kumbhakarna acted according to his ordinary morality. This was a simple thing which everybody could understand. But Vibheeshana followed a higher morality. The path he chose was more difficult and likely to be blamed.
He knew (how could anyone else know?) his inward suffering at the thought of Ravana’s evil doings. Ordinary people could not sympathise with his situation. Even today, people find it hard, without elaborate explanation, to appreciate Vibheeshana aright.
(C. Rajgopalachari; Ramayana; Chap LXV, The doctrine of surrender and grace; P411)
At another point, the author explains it again, for those who even today criticize Vibheeshana:
Men are restrained from evil by the wholesome fear that if they commit sin they would forfeit the affection and goodwill of their friends and kinsmen. This fear is a strong incentive to good behaviour and its removal would be a serious loss in society. All this is forgotten by those who argue that Vibheeshana was a ‘traitor’. Raavana was the first, unfortunately by no means the last, to dub him by that name. Those who are anxious to retain the support of kinsfolk while pursuing evil ways disapprove of Vibheeshana’s conduct. But Vibheeshana was not afraid of being a traitor. He would have nothing to do with adharma. His course was, however, not easy as we shall see.
(C. Rajgopalachari; Ramayana; Chap LXIV, The vaanara’s doubt; P405-406)
I am convinced. If we support family members even if they do evil acts, we follow ordinary morality. Better not to encourage adharma and to practice higher morality. As the author says, “In a conflict of duties, each one follows his own nature.”
- Rahul
Kumbhakarna, a brother of Ravana, didn’t approve of Ravana’s act of abducting Seeta. He believed that if Ravana wanted revenge of Lakshamana’s insult to Rakshasi princess Surpanakha, he should have challenged Rama and Lakshamana personally and fought a one-on-one battle to avenge. But when Ravana sees danger ahead and asks Kumbhakarna for help, in the end he doesn’t deny his brother. Despite knowing that he was protecting the wrong doing, he went ahead to fight for Ravana, because Ravana was his brother and his king. But the same didn’t happen with Vibheeshana. Knowing that Ravana had done wrong, he tried to persuade Ravana to return back Seeta and apologise to Ram. When Ravana goes to war with Ram, Vibhishana chose not to support him despite he being his brother. So who out of Kumbhakarna and Vibheeshana was right? C. Rajgopalachari gives a wonderful explanation in brief:
Kumbhakarna acted according to his ordinary morality. This was a simple thing which everybody could understand. But Vibheeshana followed a higher morality. The path he chose was more difficult and likely to be blamed.
He knew (how could anyone else know?) his inward suffering at the thought of Ravana’s evil doings. Ordinary people could not sympathise with his situation. Even today, people find it hard, without elaborate explanation, to appreciate Vibheeshana aright.
(C. Rajgopalachari; Ramayana; Chap LXV, The doctrine of surrender and grace; P411)
At another point, the author explains it again, for those who even today criticize Vibheeshana:
Men are restrained from evil by the wholesome fear that if they commit sin they would forfeit the affection and goodwill of their friends and kinsmen. This fear is a strong incentive to good behaviour and its removal would be a serious loss in society. All this is forgotten by those who argue that Vibheeshana was a ‘traitor’. Raavana was the first, unfortunately by no means the last, to dub him by that name. Those who are anxious to retain the support of kinsfolk while pursuing evil ways disapprove of Vibheeshana’s conduct. But Vibheeshana was not afraid of being a traitor. He would have nothing to do with adharma. His course was, however, not easy as we shall see.
(C. Rajgopalachari; Ramayana; Chap LXIV, The vaanara’s doubt; P405-406)
I am convinced. If we support family members even if they do evil acts, we follow ordinary morality. Better not to encourage adharma and to practice higher morality. As the author says, “In a conflict of duties, each one follows his own nature.”
- Rahul
No comments:
Post a Comment