________________
CONCLUSION
677
behaving with equability towards all created things by realising the unity of the Atman, cannot either secretly or openly commit any sin; and it does not remain necessary to say to him: "Always consider in what the greatest good of the greatest number lies”. Because, in the case of a man, it necessarily follows that whatever he does, will be done by him after proper consideration. It is not that proper consideration is necessary only for determining the correctness of moral Actions. What should be the state of a man's conscience when he makes that proper consideration, is the important question: because, the conscience of every one is not the same. Therefore, when one says that Equability of Reason must always inhabit the Conscience, it is not necessary to also say that one should take into proper account the welfare of the greatest number, or of all created beings, or of the entire creation. Western philosophers have now started saying that man has duties not only towards all living beings in the human species, but also towards living beings among dumb animals; and these duties must be included in the philosophy of the Doable and the Not-Doable; and it will be seen that from this comprehensive point of view, the words 'welfare of the entire creation' (sarvabhūta-hita) are more comprehensive than the words "the greatest good of the greatest number of human beings" ; and that, all this is included in Equability of Reason. If, on the other hand, one takes the case where the Reason of a particular person is not pure and equable, then, although he may be perfectly capable of deciding by calculation in what 'the greatest good of the greatest number' lies, it is not possible that he will be inclined towards moral Action; because, being inclined towards any good Action, is the quality of a Pure Mind, and not of a calculating Mind. If some one says that we need not consider the inherent nature or the mental frame of such a calculative person, and that if his calculation is correct, a correct decision is arrived at between the Duty and the Non-Duty, and we get what we want, then, such a position is wrong. Because, although every one ordinarily understands what is pain and what is happiness, yet, in discriminating between various kinds of pain and happiness, one has in the first place to decide what value
