If morality can be developed without religion, will religion become redundant?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
material senses is not perfect. So nowadays there are atheists who say that religion is meant to provide morality but religions themselves are corrupt and they are not fulfilling the purpose of providing morality and we can evolve alternate systems of moral morality and say for example even without any religion the vegan movement is developing wherein there is because of the call of conscience people want to abstain from free nations.
So can there be can the need for morality be served without any religion? Without God. This is a major philosophical debate in today’s world. I will speak three quick points.
First is that Bhaktivinoda Thakur in Chaitanya Sikshantarath talks about four categories of people. He says there are atheistic immoral, there are atheistic moral, there are theistic immoral and there are theistic moral. So we have four boxes.
So theism, atheism, morality, immorality. So theistic moral, atheistic moral, then theistic immoral and atheistic immoral. There are these four kinds of people.
So he also based on his observation acknowledges that theism does not necessarily equate to morality. Many people they may think that they are theistic. So he in fact says that these ishwarwadi atheists, these theistic immoralists, they often end up as the worst anti-preachers for religion because by their behaviour they alienate people.
The atheists, they are openly atheistic. These people, the theistic and immoral, they often alienate people because other people think that these are religious but see religious people are like this. And therefore people get alienated.
So he also recognizes that what society means and what is recommended is theistic moralists. Of course, it also has one more category is how devotees may transcend morality for the sake of Krishna. Like devotees leave their homes and families when Krishna calls.
But that is completely beyond the Surya ethic. We have to talk about moral and immoral. What he is talking about is trans-moral, higher morality.
Let us not go into that. But this classification is there in Bhaktivinoda Thakur also. And he says that what Vaishnavas should be as practicing should be theistic moralists.
We should not use our theism as a license for becoming immoral. Because as Janki Harikrishna everything goes. It does not work like that.
So in our history, the history of our milieu it happened. We are distributing books. So by hook or by crook distribute books.
At least that person will get books. But sometimes devotees would speak lies about what the books contain. They would cheat people and that led to a lot of anti-teaching.
So we cannot do that. We have to be moralists. And morality of course is a characteristic of goodness.
So now this is the one perspective. Second perspective would be that as I said morality is a product of goodness. And goodness itself is not necessarily theistic in terms of belief in God.
In the Bhagavad Gita 18th chapter when Krishna talks about the qualities of a Brahmana, he says that shamo namastapah sautam shantil aarjamaya vacham jnanam vijnanam astikyam brahma karma sabhavah So that is the astikya. But that astikya in the Vedic context does not mean belief in God. It means belief in Vedas.
And belief in Vedas generally means belief that there are some higher powers with which we need to harmonize ourselves. So a person can be a Brahmana without necessarily, Brahmana in the sense of being in goodness, without necessarily having belief in God. So it is true that just as there can be, the Bhagavatam talks about bhakti in goodness, bhakti in passion, bhakti in ignorance.
So just as there can be bhakti in goodness, passion in ignorance, there can also be atheism in goodness, passion in ignorance. Atheism itself is a worldview that is founded in ignorance. This fundamental ignorance of the ultimate reality.
But still atheists, as far as their psychological disposition is concerned, as far as their sabhav is concerned, it is not necessary that all atheists will become Sikh. There can be people who are Satvik and they have chosen atheism because they have such bad experiences with religion. And it is true that many religious people have been very arrogant.
And their arrogance has alienated many people. So there are thoughtful people who will turn towards atheism because they are put off, because they don’t get answers to their questions on religion or because religious people seem very hypocritical, very arrogant and things like that. So the point is, even in our philosophy, it is possible that people can be immoral and still be atheistic.
Because more of goodness can be cultivated without necessarily having a direct spiritual aspect to one’s life. However, we also know that more of goodness is also a cause of bondage. So in that sense, it is not an ultimate solution.
Now, the first point I talked about is that our philosophy accommodates this possibility that there can be morality, at least in terms of moral conduct, without necessarily there being devotion to God or atheism. Secondly, from a philosophical perspective, can there be a morality without an absolute source of morality? That means, on what basis do I decide what is right and what is wrong? Now, we all humans have a moral sense in the sense that we all accept that there is something which is right, there is the principle of right and wrong. But what is right and what is wrong, that different cultures have different ideas.
So how do we decide what is right and what is wrong? If there is no absolute source of morality, on what basis would we decide that? Will it be decided based on just the current culture? If the culture changes, then will moral conceptions also change? If moral conceptions change like that, then what is the foundation for that? Is it just majority opinion? If it is majority opinion, then according to majority opinion, Hitler’s killing of the Jews in the Holocaust was fine. That was Hitler’s morality. So if we don’t have an absolute source of morality, who will decide what is moral? If it is just going to be by democracy, then it can be misleading.
We don’t have to go to recent history. Recent history has the difference. Holocaust is different, there are other examples also of that.
So we cannot really have morality without an absolute source of morality. We may certainly, in morality also, there are certain decisions which are relatively easier to make. To kill animals or not to kill animals.
For us, if a person is observant, then it is easy to make. But there are many lines which have been suggested in situations that what is right and what is wrong is not so easy to say. So that is a philosophical argument which is often used to talk about how we cannot have morality without some basis for morality.
In terms of, on what framework do we decide what is right and what is wrong. But more importantly, we can question the assumption of the atheists themselves that religion is a system meant for promoting morality. We don’t agree with that.
Our purpose is that religion is meant to facilitate the development of spiritual consciousness. Religion is meant to promote self-realization. And this is another fundamental difference between the Abrahamic religions and the Vedic Yoga based traditions.
Because in the Abrahamic religions, there is no territory or there is no pathway charted for the development of Indian spiritual consciousness. You begin with faith in Jesus, you end with faith in Jesus. That’s all.
There is no pathway given for developing your consciousness. Yes, there can be people who by practicing Christianity, they may become better. There are Christians who may be addicts and they accept Jesus and they give up addiction.
Transformation is possible. But what I am talking about is a pathway given for the transformation. A systematic analysis of the states of consciousness and how consciousness develops.
So that is not talked about. So the Vedic understanding is that morality is a fringe benefit of religion. In one sense, there is Paradharma and there is Aparadharma.
So Aparadharma is important. But Aparadharma is not the primary purpose of religion. Without religion or without religions giving us the ultimate purpose of life, pointing us towards the ultimate purpose of life, we may live on according to some popularly accepted concept of morality.
But for what purpose are we living? What is the purpose of our life? So there will be no ultimate purpose left in life. So as one European philosopher, Alfred Edison used to say, Who are we but just electrons moving around aimlessly and endlessly. That’s what we are ultimately.
So we may say that we only have moral in our life but both morality and life itself become pointless unless there is God. So the purpose of religion is not to just get people to adhere to certain codes of morality. Although that is one purpose which is there.
And although in the Abrahamic religion that is what is primarily emphasized. But in the Vedic path, yes morality is there. But that is not the primary purpose.
Primary purpose is spiritual inquiry and development of spiritual consciousness. That’s why actually Krishna consciousness can be presented in a non-sectarian way to the mainstream world. Then it is a very very superior alternative to the conceptions of religions that are present in the world today.
Unfortunately even in our movement sometimes our presentation of Krishna consciousness becomes very cultish. And because of that people get alienated. But we present the broad principles of Bhakti Yoga and then we see that people think there are only these two alternatives.
Theism and Atheism. And by theism they have the conception of the Abrahamic religions. But then what the Bhagavatam offers us is something which goes beyond this dichotomy entirely.
Because theism and atheism both are founded on the material conception of life. The Bhagavatam challenges that conception by offering a spiritual conception of life. And that’s why the Bhagavatam point of view needs to be propagated.
And not propagated aggressively but propagated sensitively and intelligently. And then people who are seeking to atheism not because they are defiantly against God but because they are fed up with religion. Those people will be given a better alternative.
It’s already 9 o’clock. Today evening also we will have a session. Do you want to make an announcement? So those of you who have questions, we can use those questions in the future classes.
Today evening there will be a class where we will have only question answers. That will be where? In the temple theatre. In the temple theatre.
So if any question unanswered you can ask at that. Thank you very much.