Virtue and vice ...

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


I have been thinking as if late on virtue and vice and their boundary/limit conditions; let me explain, and ask for your POV.

puṅya पुण्य - virtuous, right , meritorious
It seems if one has limited virtue (puṅya) it is due to being obedient to the rules. That is, if one refrains from certain actions
it is due to the consequences that can arise from breaking the rules that are established. It is not so much by one's
firm hold or conviction of a principle, but of the notion to avoid punishment.

Full virtue (puṅya) seems much different. The full blossom of puṅya comes with one knowing their inherent nature ( svarūpa¹).
This nature is that of expansion of fullness of Being ( bhūman¹). One is beyond limitations and rules.
Then one is absolutely natural, virtue is no effort. One's actions are in line with nature, with the rhythms of life on a universal scale.

pāpa पाप - sin , vice , crime
Hence with limited sin (pāpa)the rules are broken. These rules can be social, family, or śāstric in nature. One pays a price.

But what then is full sin (pāpa) ? It seems to me it must be the complete absorption (āveśa¹) of the limited, of differences, of moha ( delusion) of 'me'.
That 'me' is the only thing there is.

Full virtue is the nature of the Self, full sin is the nature of moha ( delusion).

Yet here is a view I am entertaining: No matter how you apply yourself to limited virtue it will never deposit you into the realm of the Supreme,
of the Self. It will keep you compliant, out of trouble, and between the lines yet its power to uplift is minimal.

Why so? Perhaps we can review this in the next post. Yet I first thought to get your views on this matter.

praṇām
words

bhūman - abundance , plenty, fullness
āveśa - absorption of the faculties in one wish or idea; intentness , devotedness to an object
svarūpa - one's own form or shape , the form or shape of ; in this conversation the form of the Self/ātman

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Yajvan: Interesting. Your descriptions of limited versus full virtue brought my awareness back to classroom discussions on oddly enough, the breaking of laws, whether school rules (running in the hallways) or societal (speeding in traffic) laws.

There always seemed to be quite the disconnect between students who got it, and those who didn't. When asked why one shouldn't run in the hallways, those who didn't get it would just reply "so you don't get in trouble" whilst those who did would say "so you or someone else doesn't get injured." It is similar with speeding. My questions would be, "Why do some get it while others don't?" and "What can we do to enhance or enable the "don't get its" shift over to the "get its" side.

Only occasionally in my classroom discussions would I see a student have an 'Aha!" moment, and see it in a new light. There were many who were able to parrot what they were able to determine the teacher wanted to hear, but that's not the same.

Looking forward to other observations ...

Aum Namasivaya

[TheOne]

I agree with you yajvan but I don't think it's merely black and white. Like Lord Krsna said, there are three modes. Righteousness, Passion, and ignorance. I think the traditional "vices" such as lust, gambling, and other non-violent activities yet still not morally justifiable acts are in the passion section while killing, insulting, lying for benefit, and stealing are in the ignorance section.

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

The very terms puNya, pApa and jnAna are indicative of their nature:

• The term puNya is from the dhAtu--root, puN. Now this term puN has two meanings, both of which apply to puNya: 1. to act piously or virtuously; 2. collect, accumulate.

• The term pApa is from the combination pa + Apa, where pa has two meanings: 1. drinking, quaffing; 2. protecting, guarding. Drinking is absorbing, and protecting is for continued enjoyment of what is protected. When these two are combined, one gets pApa.

• The term jnAna is from the dhAtu jnA which has the meanings: knowing, learning, becoming intelligent/wise.

It is easy to see the connection between these three terms:

• By acting virtuously and piously, one gets puNya accumulated, for a better afterlife and rebirth.

• By absorbing worldly pleasures and by enjoying and protecting worldly objects, one obtains pApa.

• puNya accumulates automatically, if one acts virtuously and piously; pApa is obtained by efforts. In other words, behaving virtuously and piously is the svAbhava--nature, of man, because it is what distinguishes him from an animal. But acting otherwise requires deliberate efforts, by which one obtains pApa. The irony of both is that being grounded in svAbha is hard, while going out of it is easy. This is because of avidyA--ignorance, or lack of real knowledge about the Self.

• jnAna--knowledge, is one that connects these two actions. But knowledge, contrary to popular belief, does not accumulate, only arrived at by trial and error, by hard learning and becoming wise. By trial and error, a person arrives at the real and lasting knowledge of the Self, by progressively giving up what is falsely learnt and equated with the Self.

[Sean]

Moral right action isn't calculable, or indeed there wouldn't have been 2500 years of useless Western ethical philosophy. There are no exhaustive guiding principles and what sometimes can seem like vice can become righteousness. Certainly numerous myths of the gods involve what in Christian terms for example may be dubious action, but which has an aesthetic logic. And aesthetics refers to the realm of the gunas, the silent movement of nature to which we need to be unaffectedly aligned...

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté Sean,


Moral right action isn't calculable,
...but is possible and do-able. 'Calculable' depends on the conditions at hand. It does not come as ~standard equipment~ in ignorance, but is the very breath of one that is possessed of the Self.

Right action is at the core of the bhāgavad gītā.


praṇām

[Onkara]

Namasté Yajvan and all
The question which sprang to mind is why would one remain with 'limited virtue' (puṅya)? Given the logic of your explanation above it would make sense to take the step and move towards a state of full virtue.

Perhaps there has to be something greater than that which 'limited virtue' appears to offer? We need to feel we can let go of "right versus wrong" or "punishment versus reward" which comes with 'limited virtue' (puṅya), do we not?

If one does not know that greater cause intuitively, then can one come to know ones nature (svarūpa)?

[Believer]

I am thankful to both Yajvan and Saidevo for their above posts. During my younger days, many a times, I got discouraged by spiritual write-ups because of their lack of clarity to a newbie. I am pointing out the following examples, not as any negative comments, rather as how text could be made more reader friendly for younger audiences.


Full virtue (puṅya) seems much different. The full blossom of puṅya comes with one knowing their inherent nature ( svarūpa¹).
This nature is that of expansion of fullness of Being ( bhūman¹). One is beyond limitations and rules. One is beyond limitations and rules = One's inherent actions coming from within are far superior than any external limitations and rules imposed by the society.



• jnAna--knowledge, is one that connects these two actions. But knowledge, contrary to popular belief, does not accumulate, only arrived at by trial and error, by hard learning and becoming wise.does not accumulate = something like, 'does not come by itself'

• jnAna--knowledge, is one that connects these two actions. But knowledge, contrary to the popular belief, does not come by itself, but is only arrived at either by trial and error, or by hard learning; thereby making one wise.

Again, my only point is that to make the text reader friendly for younger audiences and to draw them towards the Hindu thought, it should be as fluid as possible.

Jai Sri ShivaVishnuKrishnaRama!
-

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté Onkara



The question which sprang to mind is why would one remain with 'limited virtue' (puṅya)? Given the logic of your explanation above it would make sense to take the step and move towards a state of full virtue.


Just on this point, there are people that wish to just get by. Full virtue is the loss of the small self ( ego-centric). This takes intent. Hence some may think any one of these ideas :

full virtue is not possible
it is not attractive or appealing
I cannot articulate it , hence I cannot get my mind around it.
why bother ?
where is the profit or ROI in it?
etc.These mind sets are of limited beings and content ( if that is the right word) with the present conditions.
praṇām

[Sean]

hariḥ oṁ

...but is possible and do-able. 'Calculable' depends on the conditions at hand. It does not come as ~standard equipment~ in ignorance, but is the very breath of one that is possessed of the Self.

Right action is at the core of the bhāgavad gītā.

Yes indeed- it's the calculating mind that causes Arjuna's suspension, indecision and inaction. He moves to a transcendent position and acts intuitively not intellectually.

[saidevo]

namaste Believer.

I said in post no.4:
jnAna--knowledge, is one that connects these two actions. But knowledge, contrary to popular belief, does not accumulate, only arrived at by trial and error, by hard learning and becoming wise.

You thought it to mean in post no.8:
jnAna--knowledge, is one that connects these two actions. But knowledge, contrary to the popular belief, does not come by itself, but is only arrived at either by trial and error, or by hard learning; thereby making one wise.

What I meant was this:

I used the term 'accumulate' to mean 'accrue'--increase by addition, like wealth. Knowledge is obtained by trial and error, what is arrived at recently, generally replacing the earlier knowledge, rather than getting added to it. Because, all worldly knowledge are only shades of avidyA--ignorance, since the knowledge about Atman--Self is the only real knowledge.

In plain terms, one does not increase one's knowledge by reading many books, adding degrees of scholarship after one's name, or being an expert in arts, humanities or science, for the simple reason that all this is only worldly knowledge. This is the reason that we often find a layman to be wiser than a pandit.

In the process of getting knowledge by trial and error, what accumulates is the wisdom, the essence of all knowledge, and the more this wisdom is focussed on the Self, the more the knowledge turns out to be real and right.

I have however noted your point about being more explicit and 'reader-friendly'.

[Believer]

Thanks Saidevo, much obliged.
I had it all wrong, your explanation helped me understand what was the correct meaning. Thanks again.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

What ends in happiness is virtue, what ends in sorrow is sin... śrī nisarga-datta maharāj, I Am That


This suggests ( to me) that limited virtue then, brings limited happiness.

It also suggests something profound about death. This brings sorrow to the viewers, observers, that do not know the truth of life or of the infinite. The 'sin' is not knowing ~moha~. Yet to the dead, the body is no more, until the next birth and this must bring happiness.


Yet, at the end of the day both sorrow and happiness is just a wheel that goes round - yet I still prefer happiness as an operating platform. It seems closer to the truth. Yet sorrows can not be far behind.

As far as I can tell there is only one way out. Total and complete annihilation of ignorance.
praṇām

[Onkara]

As far as I can tell there is only one way out. Total and complete annihilation of ignorance.

praṇām

Namasté Yajvan
Thanks for your earlier reply.

Wouldn't the 'way out' result in the emergence of a stable foundation of happiness and virtue, because that which moves us away from that virtue/happiness and into sorrow, would no longer have any hold on us?

If that which causes us to be moved away from the virtue and happiness has it foundation in ignorance (avidyā), then how would we know when ignorance is completely annihilated? Wouldn't we know from recognising that we are one with happiness? Wouldn't that happiness be the same happiness that we once felt as a wheel, with sorrow, but it is now recognised as our real being?

:)

[nirotu]

Dear Yajvan:

A great topic for discussion. . .

"Virtue and vice":

There is nothing as lovable as virtue, nor as hateful as vice.

Somewhere I have read, “We can all be saints with virtue. Virtue is a chain of all perfections, the center of happiness. She makes you prudent, discreet, shrewd, sensible, wise, brave, cautious, honest, happy, patient, praiseworthy, true . . .a universal hero. Virtue is the sun of the lesser world, and its hemisphere is a good conscience. She makes us love the living and remember the dead.”

Unfortunately, we are all caught between the virtue and the vice. To be virtuous is a difficult undertaking. Conversely, to be in the grips of vice is too easy. We all have learned this while raising children or growing ourselves as children. To bring out the good in children, parents had to work at it and teach them and be a good role model. To bring out the evil, all they had to do was to ignore the child and not do anything.

In the entire creation, greatest gift God has bestowed upon man is the placement of conscience. It is like a thermometer telling you hot that is hot and cold that is cold. It has given us the moral capacity to discern right from wrong. It is also the inner compass that guides you to be discerning. The virtue is the hemisphere of such a good conscience.

Often times, we ignore the call of the conscience because the vice has taken hold of us. When we repeatedly ignore the call of inner conscience, chances are, the next time when you hear that call, you will simply ignore it as your heart is gradually hardened and has become totally insensitive. Truly, we become like leper in our sensitivity to conscience. A leper who cannot feel the pain in certain digits, even when it is being injured, will say he does not feel anything. He knows fully well it is being injured yet does not feel the pain. The same way, a man who has repeatedly ignored the call of conscience would never feel the pain inflicted because of his hardened heart.

Therefore, let us ask God to give us the conscience that is sensitive in all areas of life so that we can at least strive to be virtuous in our life on earth. Ultimately, it is so lovely that it wins God’s grace and that of others.

BTW,

Full virtue is the nature of the Self, full sin is the nature of moha ( delusion).

Is there such thing as half sin, part sin or small sin as opposed to full sin?


Blessings,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté nirotu,




Is there such thing as half sin, part sin or small sin as opposed to full sin?


That is like stealing... if one steals 1 rupee of 1,000 rupees , stealing still occurred, no? Does magnitude count? Is 1 rupee a 1/2 sin and 1000 a full sin? If one kills does it matter if it is 1 murder or 100? It seems 100 is more grievous in my mind. So this is something to ponder - this notion of amount or magnitude.

What are your thoughts?

praṇām

[sunyata07]

That is like stealing... if one steals 1 rupee of 1,000 rupees , stealing still occurred, no? Does magnitude count? Is 1 rupee a 1/2 sin and 1000 a full sin? If one kills does it matter if it is 1 murder or 100? It seems 100 is more grievous in my mind. So this is something to ponder - this notion of amount or magnitude.

What are your thoughts?


Namaste Yajvan,

I see what you mean about the magnitude of sin. Certainly, it is natural to feel that the man who has taken a thousand lives is (objectively speaking) more wicked than the man who has taken only one. Would it not be easier for the man who has committed one great wrong to see the error of his behaviour - and do something to atone for it -, than for the man who has committed a great many wrongs? Will the former man not have greater opportunity and time to cultivate good thoughts and virtuous deeds than the latter, whose karma must surely become a burden him over time when he finally does decide to strive for upright living?

I have also wondered about what happens when we bring up the question of awareness in committing sin. Can we judge the man who commits a grave wrongdoing (where he aware of the evils of his actions, yet still chooses to engage in them) the same way we would judge the man who commits a wrongdoing and is totally ignorant of the consequences of his actions? As you have said before, Yajvan, total annihilation of ignorance is the key to this, but can there be partial awareness, but weakness in the willingness to fight against committing sin? And if so, how to account for it?

Om namah Shivaya

[saidevo]

namaste Nirotu and others.

Nirotu, like Indra the rain god, brings in clouds of discussion and debate, often quoting from Christian teachings. He has also subtly questioned Yajvan's analysis in the OP of full and partial virtue and vice, thereby ushering in the age-old discussions of the role of God's grace in man's sAdhana for Self-Realization and the ultimate reality as advaita or dvaita.

Nirotu's quote from 'somewhere he had read' is from the books 'The Art of Worldly Wisdom' by Baltasar Gracian, 1647, a Spanish Jesuit and baroque prose writer:
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/vortex/401/library/aoww/aoww12.htm (item no.300)
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/vortex/401/library/aoww/aoww.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltasar_Gracian

While there is nothing wrong per se about quoting a Christian source--although it is unnecessary here, the contents of the quote are rather nebulous and subject to discussion, IMO. For example, the mixed analogies used to illustrate the nature of virtue do not cognate:

• If "Virtue is the sun of the lesser world", does this mean that this sun, Virtue, illuminates only half the lesser world at a time?

• If "its hemisphere is a good conscience", does it mean that even saintly people who are in tune with their conscience have the action of Virtue in only one hemisphere?

• If conscience should warn the degree of right and wrong like a thermometer, then its action should be the whole of human personality, not just a hemisphere of it? If it should guide like an inner compass, then it should navigate the entire human personality, not just only a hemisphere?

• Virtue is "so lovely that it wins God's grace" no doubt, but why should it win the grace 'of others'? If this be so, is Virtue only a worldly--not spiritual--endowment? Only in the Christian canons, a virtuous person requires the grace of 'others' to be declared a saint, right?

On such issues, I find Nirotu's quote from the Spanish Jesuit to be nebulous, which makes the Christian teacher only a baroque prose writer, whose prose is "fantastically overdecorated; gaudily ornate", to use the dictionary meaning for the word 'baroque'.

As Yajvan says in the OP, we as ordinary humans have degrees of virtue and vice in our personality, like the light and gray shades of any illumination, which makes us neither wholly virtuous nor wholly vicious. It is the direction we move--towards brighter or darker sides of our personality--which decides the degree of our spirituality.

[saidevo]

namaste.

Some questions to ponder on about the degrees of virtue and vice in humans:

• A soldier kills 'enemies' because of faith in the sovereignty of his country. Is he virtuous or vicious? Does he earn puNyam or pApam for his act?

• Isn't it ironic that we speak of one who has killed more enemies as a good and patriotic solider? Does a good soldier who is perceived to be virtuous, earn more puNyam than pApam for his deeds?

• The laws related to criminals who kill people with a motive are opposite to that of the soldiers, and rightly so, in the light of dharma. But then, does the judge who awards a death sentence, and the hangman who actually does the killing, earn more puNyam than pApam for their deeds?

• Polticians and corporate business people, are always driven by selfish motives to gain and retain power and wealth. Why then does the public have to tolearate and even adore them, instead of treating them on par with criminals, although most people are fully aware of their deeds and motives?

• Suppose an actor always plays the role of a villain in films, with all sorts of vicious deeds, but in his personal life he is pious and virtuous. Would he earn any pApam for his film roles?

What do you think of the following quote?



To be virtuous, you don't have to be a sissy or a coward. You don't have to "turn the other cheek". Kunihkat Purushothama Chon states in Remedy the Frauds in Hinduism:

...kindness extended to violet enemies is not productive of goodness. Such superficial kindness is false and the persons showing such kindness are not kind themselves.

I don't care what Jesus Christ said about the above matter. Unless a person is a chronic and obsessive masochist, it is absolutely impossible for us to love our enemies! If I am wrong, the old song, You Always Hurt the One You Love, states the true purpose of all affection. Is that why we killed and maimed all those innocent children in the Iraqi conflict?

Ref: Nature's Religion Versus Mankind's Spiritual Frauds!
by Genie D.Matlock
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZVr-XkQdvRwC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=%22Virtue+is+a+chain+of+all+perfections%22&source=bl&ots=TReHDEoJdR&sig=U1YFuamhbX90WFxUHnYHgRXfyy0&hl=en&ei=PW9gTfOzN8XTrQe5xvT7AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Virtue%20is%20a%20chain%20of%20all%20perfections%22&f=false

[Arjuni]

Namasté, all.

Yajvan, regarding your very first post on this subject: the idea of "fullness" seems to touch the heart of Sanatana Dharma. It was discussed in an earlier forum thread regarding truth-versus-truthfulness; it turns up time and again in stories of our faith, as with the hunter whose "inappropriate" offerings to Shiva are sanctified by the fullness of his devotion. Over and over, we see that "fullness" - the complete absorption of mind, heart and soul in contemplation and love of the Supreme - leads to fulfilment.

With the accrual of limited virtue, or as you explained in being obedient only to the rules (the forms of virtue rather than the inner spirit of virtue), the attention is divided; one's motivation is to avoid punishment or ostracism, and thus there is no fullness, expansiveness, radiance. There is only the prison of the self, in which one hides and absorbs oneself to avoid discomfort, and thus one cheats oneself from the fullness of experience, reinforces separation rather than unity. So, indeed, limited virtue in this way will not lead to the Supreme, and thus of course can only bring limited happiness. (Any happiness of this world is transient and limited by nature; only in the Supreme is it absolute.)

Moving on to later posts - Saidevo:
Nirotu, like Indra the rain god, brings in clouds of discussion and debate, often quoting from Christian teachings.
I have never once known Lord Indra to quote Christian teachings in arguing a point. ;)

Okay, joking aside: one of your example questions really hit home. Suppose an actor always plays the role of a villain in films, with all sorts of vicious deeds, but in his personal life he is pious and virtuous. Would he earn any pApam for his film roles?

I muddled through this very question some weeks ago. As an amateur stage actress for a few years, I was taught that complete absorption into my character was necessary to disconnect from the actions which I was performing. Yet, for a new performer this is difficult to do, and I would sometimes be affected by roles, particularly characters with personalities similar to mine. As I delved more into religious practice, I felt more conflicted; at home I practiced sādhanā and cultivated serenity and kindness, but in the rehearsal room I played characters doing various sinful or unstable things. This divide became a real problem in January, in which I was cast as the lead in a play about a young noblewoman who becomes "fallen" and commits suicide. The role involved flirting, slapping, cruelly ordering people about, and kissing a male co-star; it was also a pivotal opportunity and could have led to professional roles.

Had I been able to lose my-self completely to the part, if I possessed excellent sense-control and dispassion, I don't know that pāpam would have been a concern - honey as poison, kisses or slaps, all the same. But had there been even a moment of getting ego-stoked about an excellent performance, enjoyment of feeling power over others or smacking someone else, or pleasure in touching my attractive gentleman friend, I would have indeed felt pāpam in the act. My attention would have been divided; there would have been no fullness, as I described above, but the split between the appropriately-acted character and the actress-me reveling in wrongness while hiding behind the "requirements" for my part.

Any acting role can give a performer license to engage in all sorts of normally-forbidden activities, and I think it's a rare actor indeed who can bring a character fully to life while taking no personal pleasure in the freedom. (After understanding that, feeling that theatre was taking too much time from my spiritual practice, and realising that I likely could not achieve vairāgya while playing regular roles, I gave up the part and have since left the stage altogether.)

Finally, regarding the quote you posted, I do not agree with the author. He is right in that a show of external kindness, without really feeling kind, is not helpful to the psyche...but this seems, again, to tie into the idea of limited-versus-full-virtue.

When I found the Indra sahasranāma, one of the names given was ajātaśatruḥ. Using my "oh, look, online dictionaries" pseudo-method of dealing with Sanskrit, I found two possible meanings for this word: one without enemies, and one without enmity towards anyone. Even if I'm wrong in interpreting that particular word, it seems to me that those two ideas naturally converge. Genuine, pure kindness and love are not the same as weakness, and while 'loving one's enemies' may well be impossible, surely pure, selfless love can awaken, in each of us, that supreme soul which has no real enemies?

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté indraneela


When I found the Indra sahasranāma, one of the names given was ajātaśatruḥ. Using my "oh, look, online dictionaries" pseudo-method of dealing with Sanskrit, I found two possible meanings for this word: one without enemies, and one without enmity towards anyone
your view of this word is excellent.

ajātaśatruḥ अजातशत्रु - is having no enemy

ajāta = unborn, or not yet born , also it is 'undeveloped'
śatru - 'overthrower' , an enemy , foe , rivalSo we can see by this name it is an unborn foe, a yet to be born enemy - one that does not have even the hint of the possibility of having a rival.
Becasuse of this, it is a name that has been ascribed to śiva ; also yudhiṣṭhira ( one of the 5 pāṇḍava-s¹) was known by this name.

praṇām

words

pāṇḍava - the 5 sons of pāṇḍu - yudhiṣṭhira , bhīma , arjuna , nakula and sahadeva ; son's of kuntī and mādrī

[nirotu]

Nirotu's quote from 'somewhere he had read' is from the books 'The Art of Worldly Wisdom' by Baltasar Gracian, 1647, a Spanish Jesuit and baroque prose writer Thank you for pointing out the author.


While there is nothing wrong per se about quoting a Christian source--although it is unnecessary here, the contents of the quote are rather nebulous and subject to discussion, IMO. For example, the mixed analogies used to illustrate the nature of virtue do not cognate:
What bothers me is the fact that you take anything that is philosophically sound as nebulous if it is coming from a non-hindu source. I did not see anything confusing in his statement as quoted. Perhaps, you can point me to error in the statement that I quoted, “We can all be saints with virtue. Virtue is a chain of all perfections, the center of happiness. She makes you prudent, discreet, shrewd, sensible, wise, brave, cautious, honest, happy, patient, praiseworthy, true . . .a universal hero. Virtue is the sun of the lesser world, and its hemisphere is a good conscience. She makes us love the living and remember the dead.”


If "Virtue is the sun of the lesser world", does this mean that this sun, Virtue, illuminates only half the lesser world at a time?
It is not the virtue that illuminates but the deeds of man that defines if he belongs to the sphere of virtue or to that of dark despair. It is man who defines whether he belongs to one or the other. If the evil world can be gained by consenting to sin and the kingdom of God can be attained by the practice of virtue, we do have two separate worlds and the motive behind man's actions dictate where he belongs. Therefore, one that shines and illuminates like the sun and the other is dark despair.


If "its hemisphere is a good conscience", does it mean that even saintly people who are in tune with their conscience have the action of Virtue in only one hemisphere?
Yes, it should be intuitive that virtue is a result of positive response to the call of inner conscience. In fact, the mark of a spiritual person is that he will always respond in such a way that puts him in the hemisphere of virtue and not vice. People who are living in sin are going to have their faith made shipwreck through their consciences


If conscience should warn the degree of right and wrong like a thermometer, then its action should be the whole of human personality, not just a hemisphere of it? If it should guide like an inner compass, then it should navigate the entire human personality, not just only a hemisphere?
Absolutely ! When I say we ought to have conscience that is sensitive in all areas of life, I mean exactly what it says. A person can be virtuous in one area of life but can be equally evil in other areas. He may be loving the society, giving alms, kind to others and cheritable but is a cruel husband to his wife and children at home. He may have been perceived as a noble one by the society but his personal life could be quite the opposite. That is because, he has hardened his heart to the call of conscience in some areas.


Virtue is "so lovely that it wins God's grace" no doubt, but why should it win the grace 'of others'? If this be so, is Virtue only a worldly--not spiritual--endowment? Only in the Christian canons, a virtuous person requires the grace of 'others' to be declared a saint, right?
Grace is an empowering presence of God. It is the presence of spirit of God and can be felt among others. When Ramana Maharishi held satsangh, there was an absolute silence and everyone at the meeting felt the presence of God. This is not an uncommon phenomenon.


As Yajvan says in the OP, we as ordinary humans have degrees of virtue and vice in our personality, like the light and gray shades of any illumination, which makes us neither wholly virtuous nor wholly vicious. It is the direction we move--towards brighter or darker sides of our personality--which decides the degree of our spirituality.
Yes, but what makes a man spiritual is dependent which side he takes on in the tug-of-war between virtue and vice. Man is essentially caught between the two and his exercise of free will determines who he ends up as. God is “perfect” and “holy” and expects us to be holy. So the bar is high. It is for this reason, since we are neither wholly virtuous nor wholly vicious, a man can never reach the state of perfection. Since naturally streaming water can never rise above its source, a man also can never rise above the state of man.

Blessings,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté




puṅya पुण्य - virtuous, right , meritorious
It seems if one has limited virtue (puṅya) it is due to being obedient to the rules. That is, if one refrains from certain actions it is due to
the consequences that can arise from breaking the rules that are established. It is not so much by one's firm hold or conviction of a principle,
but of the notion to avoid punishment.

pāpa पाप - sin , vice , crime
Hence with limited sin (pāpa)the rules are broken. These rules can be social, family, or śāstric in nature. One pays a price.

So, one strives to acquire virtue. with intent, patience and discipline virtue grows... but is all well?

Upon this growth, compliments come, success even begins to mount. One feels accomplishment. Now , is it possible that this virtue begins
to add to one's ego, to one's pride. Oh, I am so virtuous, all the people in my village recognize me as an honorable man. Does the chest get
puffed up? Does the swelling of pride only create more boundaries ?

As I see it virtue and vice can be a constraint to a sādhu's experience of Being (sattā). Yet if I had to pick, I will choose virtue.
Then no grief comes to society, but still has ~halting power~ over ones progression to the Supreme.

Hence full virtue is being possessed (āveśa¹) of the Self (svarūpa¹). Then the ego and pride are left at the door steps of the ignorant.



praṇām
words

āveśa - absorption of the faculties in one wish or idea; intentness , devotedness to an object
svarūpa - one's own form or shape , the form or shape of ; in this conversation the form of the Self/ātman

[nirotu]

• A soldier kills 'enemies' because of faith in the sovereignty of his country. Is he virtuous or vicious? Does he earn puNyam or pApam for his act?

Dear Saidevo:

Great Partha kills enemies because of faith in the sovereignty of Krishna. Does his action make him a killer like the soldier you describe?

If a result from an act is what makes a person virtuous or vicious, Arjuna ends up being just as vicious as the killer soldier. Do you agree?

On the other hand, if you were to consider the "motive" behind the action is relevant, then you probably answered your own question.

As Yajavan puts it, " Right action is at the core of the bhāgavad gītā." (post #6), I would consider the motive behind an action that is righteous, the motive behind anger that is righteous and the motive behind the wrath that is righteous are all considered virtuous acts.


I don't care what Jesus Christ said about the above matter. Unless a person is a chronic and obsessive masochist, it is absolutely impossible for us to love our enemies!

Do you think so? I have seen victims of heinous crime who have actually visited the prison to meet the criminal (perpetrator) to "forgive" him. Unless one does truly understand the meaning of "forgiveness", he does not really understand what "love" truly means.


Blessings,

[nirotu]

That is like stealing... if one steals 1 rupee of 1,000 rupees , stealing still occurred, no? Does magnitude count? Is 1 rupee a 1/2 sin and 1000 a full sin? If one kills does it matter if it is 1 murder or 100? It seems 100 is more grievous in my mind. So this is something to ponder - this notion of amount or magnitude.

Dear Yajavan:

It is my opinion; a sin is a sin, no matter how small it is. It all stems from the fact that Brahman is perfect and desires we be perfect if we are to have "moksha". Since our actions in life makes us "neither virtuos or vicious", we can never have complete perfection. Therefore, we are at His mercy and grace that would enable us to at least strive towards that perfection. If our motives are good, I am sure God in His infinite wisdom will deal with us accordingly.

I believe, all those who are liberated and enjoy the presence of God are truly forgiven saints. Mark of a saint is not that he does not sin but he hates sin or evil whenever it happens. To love God is to hate evil. It is implicit that if a person is striving to be good, he has tuned his heart to hate evil as soon as it happens. It is because he has sensitive conscience.

Blessings,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté nirotu,



It is my opinion; a sin is a sin, no matter how small it is. It all stems from the fact that Brahman is perfect and desires we be perfect if we are to have "moksha". Since our actions in life makes us "neither virtuos or vicious", we can never have complete perfection. Therefore, we are at His mercy and grace that would enable us to at least strive towards that perfection. If our motives are good, I am sure God in His infinite wisdom will deal with us accordingly.

I believe, all those who are liberated and enjoy the presence of God are truly forgiven saints. Mark of a saint is not that he does not sin but he hates sin or evil whenever it happens. To love God is to hate evil. It is implicit that if a person is striving to be good, he has tuned his heart to hate evil as soon as it happens. It is because he has sensitive conscience. Blessings,

You have offered some interesting points... if I may let me comment on a few and ask for your opinion and point of view.

A sin is a sin - yes, no doubt big or small. Yet it is an action. Just like a virtuous thing done, is also an action. Actions bind says the bhāgavad gītā.
It is skill in action that takes us beyond this binding influence of good-bad environment. Now that premise being set , I can then ask and offer this:

If we agree that a saint is fully established in Being (sattā) , a realized individual possessed of the Self, then he/she is outside the field of action.
Actions do not bind. Do you agree?

If this saint is of balanced intellect due to being possessed of the Self ( ātman) then he/she views all things with an equal eye.
A blade of grass has the same value as a bag of gold. If we agree on this point the saint must also see virtue and sin as the same. That is, Reality is beyond these extremes.
Sin and virtue are actions; one may be preferred over the other , yet they are actions just the same , and they bind. They keep us in ignorance.

Thus my next point for your consideration: How productive can it be to hate evil ( per your note)...
If you hate, are you not fueling and contributing to evil ?


I look forward to your thoughts on these matters.

praṇām

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: With the different opinions being expressed, I have a question. So is there a universal virtue? How can we decide what it is? In wars, both sides feel they are on the side of virtue, no?

Of another example would be vegetarianism (or just diet) , in all its variations, from vegan, lacto, ovo, some animals okay organic, etc. etc. Does not each person believe their particular diet to be virtuous?

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Vanakkam: With the different opinions being expressed, I have a question. So is there a universal virtue?

Yes, I believe there is. IMHO when every action is in accord with the laws of nature, the Supreme Intelligence is working through the person.
Now this does not come via choices of I will do this, and not do that. There are too many innumerable actions and situations.
It has to be spontaneous right action - this is dharma at its fullest.

This comes when cittaviśrānti is established. This means the condition of the mind that is seated in the Self. It then ( the mind, manas)
becomes a faithful servant to the Self (ātman); And who is this ātman when in full bloom? The Supreme.
Then one's actions become the extension of the Supreme. Hence one is virtuous by going beyond human virtue. It is then universal virtue.


praṇām

[nirotu]

. . . Thus my next point for your consideration: How productive can it be to hate evil ( per your note)...If you hate, are you not fueling and contributing to evil ?

Dear Yajvan:

I thank you and appreciate your candid approach to the subject. Your question is well taken.

You have used two words “hate” and “evil” and people bristle at these two words.

Dictionary defines:
Evil : “the deliberate infliction of cruelty -- mass murder, rape, torture, genocide, and totalitarianism” to name a few. Essentially, we know evil when we see it.
Hate : "love less", “to love less” or "dislike".

Coming back to your question: Should a man hate evil? Is it productive to his spiritual journey? Or “If you hate, are you not fueling and contributing to evil ?”.

I have to respectfully disagree with the second part (bold). As I have come to understand, we are supposed to hate evil, because it is through evil that a man is destroyed. Those who do evil are said to "hate" their own “self”, their own life.

It is impossible to truly love someone with God's kind of love without hating anything that comes against that person. Thus, there is a righteous type of anger/hate that is not sin.

You have to remember it's not hating just to hate; it's hating evil. That makes the big difference, IMO. The unjustified wrath or hate of man does not accomplish the righteousness of God.

If a man, in his heart, has nothing but hatred for others, he needs to examine his heart and see if it is righteous. If it turns out not, we cannot fight evil with evil. Evil has to be overcome with good. Instead of cursing the darkness, turn on a light.

Blessings,

[smaranam]

Namaste

If i may add some redundant 2 cents -

This is the triguNAteet / nistraiguNa that KRshNa takes about: Beyond the three guNas. The transcendence of all three modes of material nature - sattva (goodness) raja (passion) tama (ignorance), so that is when the true nature of AtmA will be revealed.

At the same time, KRshNa also says that the way to transcend the three modes of nature (prakruti-guNas), is by increasing sattva - goodness which can mean righteousness. And the method He says is : avyabhicharena bhakti-yogena in the next verse. Which could mean
- marching in step with KRshNa's Divine Will (surrender ?)
- dovetailing all activities for Him or nishkAm karma yog - do the duty without expectations
- direct bhakti yog - engaging the mind in BhagavAn and not the material or mundane. And that too avyabhichArena - unconditionally.


BG 14.22-25: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Pāṇḍu, he who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present or long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable; who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities — such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature.

BG 14.26: One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman.

BG 14.27: And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.



This is what the posts on this thread seem to be arriving at. Sorry if that was redundant.

praNAm

[Eastern Mind]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Yes, I believe there is.

Vannakkam Yajvan: I agree as well. But the differences would arise when we start discussing the nature of this universal virtue.

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

Vannakkam Yajvan: I agree as well. But the differences would arise when we start discussing the nature of this universal virtue. Aum Namasivaya

Yes... now if you afford me the liberty, I would say it slightly differently. That is, in this Universal virtue there are no differences, that is what makes it different! So the conversation becomes one of comparing and contrasting, yet here is the pickle. It this Universal virtue the world is without blemish. The world of differences is just not there. That resides in the world of Universal ignorance.

The only word I am reminded of that may perhaps fit is satatoditam from the tantrāloka - It is that which has no pause, no break. It is the condition of being homogeneous, pure, without fraction. That virtue never has a fissure of where a blemish of vice may arise. That is why is so inspiring, uplifting.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté nirotu,



You have used two words “hate” and “evil” and people bristle at these two words.
Dictionary defines:
Evil : “the deliberate infliction of cruelty -- mass murder, rape, torture, genocide, and totalitarianism” to name a few. Essentially, we know evil when we see it.
Hate : "love less", “to love less” or "dislike".

Coming back to your question: Should a man hate evil? Is it productive to his spiritual journey? Or “If you hate, are you not fueling and contributing to evil ?”.

I have to respectfully disagree with the second part (bold). As I have come to understand, we are supposed to hate evil, because it is through evil that a man is destroyed. Those who do evil are said to "hate" their own “self”, their own life.
I think your post is well thought out and I can appreciate the rationale offered. Let me , if I may offer this for your kind consideration.

When I mentioned the following: “If you hate, are you not fueling and contributing to evil ?” my points are the following.

Fuel
By giving energy ( attention, voice, emotion) to evil, that is fuel for it to continue to burn. It is said this way by one I greatly respect,
Svāmī Brahmānanda Sarasvatī was Śaṅkarācārya of Jyotirmath (from 1941-1953): Indifference is a very big astra¹ (weapon).
Anybody uttering unpleasantness or being disrespectful in any way then be indifferent to him, that is to say; withdraw one's own
thought from his direction.

He is saying in short, unfuel this person. Being disrespectful may be poor manners, but it is not evil, and I must agree,
yet there is a lesson in the Śaṅkarācārya's words.

Now let's go a bit further on this matter.

bhāgavad gītā
Let's look to the bhāgavad gītā for some coaching. We can go though this śāstra and look at the wisdom offered.
Kṛṣṇa-jī instructs arjun ( some spell arjuna) to rise up and fight; He says this several times in chapter 2. Yet He instructs arjun to
do this with a balanced mind ( chapter 2, 48th śloka). But why do you think kṛṣṇa-jī says this? He did not say , hate your enemy and
stand up and fight. Because kṛṣṇa-jī knows that the balanced mind gives the greatest effectiveness in what it does. It is not swayed by
excessive emotion. This gives arjun an additional advantage on the field of war or on the field of life.

I think this idea can be considered in addition to post 30 offered by smarnam above. If one is beyond the 3 guṇa's that also suggests
he/she is beyond hate, rage, etc.

praṇām

words
astra अस्त्र- a weapon in general ; rooted in 'as' a missile weapon , bolt , arrow ; to throw , cast , shoot at ; to drive away