EACH IS GREAT IN HIS OWN PLACE - 1

EACH IS GREAT IN HIS OWN PLACE

According to the Sânkhya philosophy, nature is composed of three forces
called, in Sanskrit, Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. These as manifested in the
physical world are what we may call equilibrium, activity, and inertness.
Tamas is typified as darkness or inactivity; Rajas is activity, expressed as
attraction or repulsion; and Sattva is the equilibrium of the two.
In every man there are these three forces. Sometimes Tamas prevails. We
become lazy, we cannot move, we are inactive, bound down by certain ideas or
by mere dullness. At other times activity prevails, and at still other times that
calm balancing of both. Again, in different men, one of these forces is
generally predominant. The characteristic of one man is inactivity, dullness and
laziness; that of another, activity, power, manifestation of energy; and in still
another we find the sweetness, calmness, and gentleness, which are due to the
balancing of both action and inaction. So in all creation — in animals, plants,
and men — we find the more or less typical manifestation of all these different
forces.
Karma-Yoga has specially to deal with these three factors. By teaching what
they are and how to employ them, it helps us to do our work better. Human
society is a graded organization. We all know about morality, and we all know
about duty, but at the same time we find that in different countries the
significance of morality varies greatly. What is regarded as moral in one
country may in another be considered perfectly immoral. For instance, in one
country cousins may marry; in another, it is thought to be very immoral; in one,
men may marry their sisters-in-law; in another, it is regarded as immoral; in
one country people may marry only once; in another, many times; and so forth.
Similarly, in all other departments of morality, we find the standard varies
greatly — yet we have the idea that there must be a universal standard of
morality.
So it is with duty. The idea of duty varies much among different nations. In one
country, if a man does not do certain things, people will say he has acted
wrongly; while if he does those very things in another country, people will say
that he did not act rightly — and yet we know that there must be some
universal idea of duty. In the same way, one class of society thinks that certain
things are among its duty, while another class thinks quite the opposite and
would be horrified if it had to do those things. Two ways are left open to us —
the way of the ignorant, who think that there is only one way to truth and that
all the rest are wrong, and the way of the wise, who admit that, according to
our mental constitution or the different planes of existence in which we are,
duty and morality may vary. The important thing is to know that there are
gradations of duty and of morality — that the duty of one state of life, in one
set of circumstances, will not and cannot be that of another.
To illustrate: All great teachers have taught, "Resist not evil," that nonresistance
is the highest moral ideal. We all know that, if a certain number of us
attempted to put that maxim fully into practice, the whole social fabric would
fall to pieces, the wicked would take possession of our properties and our lives,
and would do whatever they liked with us. Even if only one day of such nonresistance
were practiced, it would lead to disaster. Yet, intuitively, in our heart
of hearts we feel the truth of the teaching "Resist not evil." This seems to us to
be the highest ideal; yet to teach this doctrine only would be equivalent to
condemning a vast portion of mankind. Not only so, it would be making men
feel that they were always doing wrong, and cause in them scruples of
conscience in all their actions; it would weaken them, and that constant selfdisapproval
would breed more vice than any other weakness would. To the
man who has begun to hate himself the gate to degeneration has already
opened; and the same is true of a nation.
Our first duty is not to hate ourselves, because to advance we must have faith in
ourselves first and then in God. He who has no faith in himself can never have
faith in God. Therefore, the only alternative remaining to us is to recognise that
duty and morality vary under different circumstances; not that the man who
resists evil is doing what is always and in itself wrong, but that in the different
circumstances in which he is placed it may become even his duty to resist evil.
In reading the Bhagavad-Gita, many of you in Western countries may have felt
astonished at the second chapter, wherein Shri Krishna calls Arjuna a hypocrite
and a coward because of his refusal to fight, or offer resistance, on account of
his adversaries being his friends and relatives, making the plea that nonresistance
was the highest ideal of love. This is a great lesson for us all to learn,
that in all matters the two extremes are alike. The extreme positive and the
extreme negative are always similar. When the vibrations of light are too slow,
we do not see them, nor do we see them when they are too rapid. So with
sound; when very low in pitch, we do not hear it; when very high, we do not
hear it either. Of like nature is the difference between resistance and nonresistance.
One man does not resist because he is weak, lazy, and cannot, not
because he will not; the other man knows that he can strike an irresistible blow
if he likes; yet he not only does not strike, but blesses his enemies. The one
who from weakness resists not commits a sin, and as such cannot receive any
benefit from the non-resistance; while the other would commit a sin by offering
resistance. Buddha gave up his throne and renounced his position, that was true
renunciation; but there cannot be any question of renunciation in the case of a
beggar who has nothing to renounce. So we must always be careful about what
we really mean when we speak of this non-resistance and ideal love. We must
first take care to understand whether we have the power of resistance or not.
Then, having the power, if we renounce it and do not resist, we are doing a
grand act of love; but if we cannot resist, and yet, at the same time, try to
deceive ourselves into the belief that we are actuated by motives of the highest
love, we are doing the exact opposite. Arjuna became a coward at the sight of
the mighty array against him; his "love" made him forget his duty towards his
country and king. That is why Shri Krishna told him that he was a hypocrite:
Thou talkest like a wise man, but thy actions betray thee to be a coward;
therefore stand up and fight!