World of Philosophy

Author(s): Christopher Key Chapple, Intaj Malek, Dilip Charan, Sunanda Shastri, Prashant Dave
Publisher: Shanti Prakashan

Page 558

conflicting claims of both the rights of reason and of the right to sensibility. Here the term 'self does not mean the individual self rather the total self or divine self. But this self-realisation can not be really attained so long as our act is confined to the phenomenal world, without the knowledge of the supreme All-pervading identity, which is provided by religion. So it is quite evident that morality abstracted from religion gives us nothing concrete. So if morality is to be crowned with the final end called self-realisation, it must have a religious and hence metaphysical basis. Such close relation between religion and morality has been upheld by all theistic philosophers of west like Prof. Green and others. This too is the keynote of all Hindu systems of thought.
Deeper insight reveals that religion is not simply the basis of but serves as the surest guarantee for all true morality. This is clearly depicted in the Gita thus:
Sarvadharmān paritejya māmekam saranam vraja, Aham tvām sarvapāpebhya mokshayishyāmi mā suchah. (10)
Hence God calls upon all beings to resort to Him alone even at the sacrifice of all other dharmas (duties) and He promises to save them from all sorts of transgression. Hence it follows that if one has recourse to the highest duty as the aim of one's life i.e. the devotion to God' as the supreme function of one's own self then it implies the systematic practice of true morality. Thus religion gives rise to morality but not vice versa.
Thus religion being the foundation of morality is to be accepted by all, because non of the virtues can by itself be regarded as an absolute moral standard of rightness and wrongness of action. Some of the European moralists in general and Kant in particular regard, moral principle as categorical imperative which is binding upon all under all circumstances irrespective of the consequences thereof. Kant imagines God as the postulate of morality. This is a controversial point. But analysis shows that there can be no universal moral standard as claimed by Kant independent of situation. For example the duty of truth speaking is regarded as a cardinal virtue. But it can not be accepted as absolute morality or it can not be elevated into a definite moral maxim without any reference to the affairs of the actual world. Because our scriptures like Mahābhārata and other purānas allow the exception that speaking a lie in the shape of suppressioveri or suggest fals might be allowable when the object is a noble one. Thus we may conclude that the virtue of truth telling by itself can not be regarded as an absolute standard of morality. Morality in any form must have a touch of religion. Similar is the case with another accepted cardinal virtue i.e. 'ahimsā'. Ahimsā means non-killing in literal sense. But positively it means not wishing
509