Srimad Bhagavadgita-Rahasya OR Karma-Yoga-Sastra -Bal Gangadhar Tilak
|
CHAPTER XII
THE STATE AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SIDDHA (PERFECT)
that is, "should discriminate between external factors like the usual activities of men, laws of Ethics, and one's own benefit", and decide what is to be done ; and the king Sibi has, in the Vanaparva, followed the same principle for discriminating between right and wrong [1]. From these statements, it will be clearly seen that the 'external guiding factor' of the mode of life of a Sthitaprajna, is the advancement of society ; and if this is accepted as correct, the next question which faces us is : why do Metaphysicians not accept the Materialistic Ethical law of 'the greatest happiness or, (using the word 'happiness' in a more extensive meaning), benefit, or advantage of the greatest number'? I have shown above in the fourth chapter that the one great drawback of the principle of the 'greatest happiness of the greatest number' is, that it does not provide for either, the happiness or amelioration resulting from Self-Realisation, or the happiness in the next world. But this drawback can to a great extent be removed by taking the word 'happiness' in a comprehensive meaning ; and the Metaphysical argument given above in support of the immutability of Ethical laws, will, therefore, not appear of importance to many. It is, therefore, necessary to again give a further elucidation of the important difference between the Metaphysical and the- Materialistic aspect of Ethics. The question whether a particular act is ethically proper or improper can be considered in two ways : (1) by considering merely its external result, that is to say, its visible effect on the world ; and (2) by considering the Reason or the Desire- of the doer. The first method of consideration is known as the MATERIALISTIC (adhibhautika) method. In the second method, there are again two sub-divisions, each of which has a different name. I have in the previous chapters referred, to the doctrines that (i) in order that one's Action should be pure, one's Practical Reason has got to be pure, and that (ii) in order that one's Practical Reason should be pure, one's Pure Reason, that is, the reasoning faculty, which discriminates between what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, has got to be steady, equable, and pure. According to these doctrines, one has to see whether the Practical Reason which prompted a particular action was or was not pure, in order to determine whether the Action is pure; and when one wishes to consider whether the Practical Reason was or was not pure,, one has necessarily to see whether the Deciding Reason was or was not pure. In short, whether the Reason or the Desire of the doer was or was not pure, has ultimately to be judged by considering the purity or the impurity of the Deciding Reason [2]. When this Deciding Reason is considered to be an independent deity, embodying the power of dis- crimination between Right and Wrong (sadasadvivecana-sakti), that method of consideration is called the INTOTTIONIST' (adhidaivika) method; but if one believes that this power is not an independent deity, but is an eternal organ of the Atman, and on that account, one looks upon the Atman, instead of the Reason, as the principal factor and determines the pureness of Desire on that basis, that method of determin ing principles of Ethics is known as the METAPHYSICAL (adhyatmika) method.
|
|
