The War Within - Between Good and Evil - Bheemeswara Challa (psychology books to read TXT) 📗

in the company of sex.
Pleasure, pain, passion, jealousy, revenge, they all are more intense than in
any other state of awareness. They can make man a maniac and, if properly
propelled, a mahatma. The fact is that we are all sexual beings; it is through that
very route that we are all born, but we are more than that. The path of sexual
transformation is not about rapidly indulging in sex, denying sex, running away
from sex, or even overcoming the desire for sex. From ancient times, many have
envisioned transforming sexual energy into a spiritual tool, more than as a means
of recreation or procreation. Besides Tantric and Taoist sexual energy practices,
there are several other references to the secret powers within sex. The Jewish
Kabbalah for instance, refers to sexual desire as the deepest spiritual expression,
and in yoga, our sacred sexual energy lies dormant until awakened through
what is called the Kundalini way. Psychologist Carl Jung wrote about the notion
of sexual alchemy (similar to Freud’s sexual sublimination). All of this implies
that, with the right will, we can transform the raw passion from our libidos
into sublime creativity. But, sadly, all that is happening in matters of sex offers,
more than any other, evidence that the fortunes of that which is good, noble
and righteous in us, is waning and getting weaker, and the evil in us has gained
advantage and ascendancy. It is but natural that it affects the most basic of all
urges that has always been a dominant force in human affairs, even in prehistoric
times. If we want to gain some control over our sexuality, without which we can
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
258
have no control over the direction of human development, the only way, and a
powerful way, is to reverse the fortunes of the war by strengthening the forces of
good. It is a critical key to ‘winning’ the war.
Our Two ‘Hearts’ and the War Within
The question about morality of war has long been discussed. Morality is a
crucial dimension of human life. We have long agonized over what we ought
to do, should do, must not do, or may do, to make our life fulfilling and at
the same time, make sure that it does not jeopardize others’ lives. Is ‘morality’
man-made, a social convenience and necessity, or is it a divine injunction? If so,
where is it codified and what is its irreducible essence? What is moral behavior
and when is it morally right to do wrong things? Is a religious person inherently
‘moral’? Should any ‘war’, which necessarily is violent and involves mass killing
and maiming, be deemed moral, immoral, amoral, or evil? It has been said that
‘morality has no place in the assessment of war’; or perhaps, more factually, we
can say: morality, by definition and design, has no place in war. And hence the
question of ‘assessment’ does not arise. In fact, one might say that man invented
‘war’ precisely to abandon ‘morality’ of every kind; to give license to evil of every
imagination. But almost all religions that do not condemn war per se, sanction war,
if not glorify it, in certain circumstances. There is also an implied sense that wars,
which essentially entail the sudden death of large numbers of human beings, are
necessary as a way, or the only way, to maintain the life-balance on earth. It is a
part of the package of ‘being human’, nature’s ruse to counter the human survival
capacity. Basically ‘war’ is really a composite of two of our worst traits: avarice
and aggression in an organized and virulent form. Some have argued that human
beings, especially men, are inherently violent and, while this violence is repressed
in normal society, it needs the occasional outlet provided by war. When we are
not actually at ‘war’, our inherent urges like avarice, aggression, and violence
get exposed in other non-war-like ways, no less lethal and more embedded in
our daily life. Many have suggested that war-making is fundamentally cultural,
imbibed by nurture rather than nature. Still, we cannot say it is another animal
instinct; like that of a tiger, who needs to kill to live. It means that it is not
germane to being human but is now as much ‘human’ as anything else. What is
The Two Cherokee Wolves Fighting Within
259
intrinsic is the ‘war within’. The 19th-century Tibetan Lama Jamgon Kongtrul
characterized the ‘war’ thus: “From the outside, we appear to be genuine dharma
practitioners; on the inside, our minds have not blended with the dharma. We
conceal our afflictions (called klesas in Sanskrit) inside like a poisonous snake. Yet
when difficult situations arise, the hidden faults of a poor practitioner come to
light”. In fact, the ‘war without’ has become such a huge part of human history
because the wrong side is winning the war within.
What incubates inside is ‘perception’ and what happens outside is
‘behavior’; both of which influence each other reciprocally and simultaneously.
What we perceive is what we become. The ancient rishi Ashtavakra says, “The
reason why we grow old, age and die is we see other people grow old, ageing,
and dying. And what we see we become”. Our predicament is that we do not
know exactly what goes on inside us, but we do know that some kind of turmoil
is constantly at work. We seem pulled by different forces, even from ‘outside’ we
can sense it and feel it; as if someone other than ‘we’ are calling the shots. We do
not know exactly how but we do know that our brain, body, and behavior are
connected and even our heart. We use almost involuntary expressions like ‘I just
feel that way’; I am in two minds; I have the gut feeling; I hear voices within or
an inner voice; and I cannot prove it but I believe it, etc.—all symbolic of the
‘war within’. When Hermann Hesse said he listens to ‘the teachings my blood
whispers to me’ he was referring to a voice from within. When we say ‘I doubt
it’, it could well be someone suggesting what we call a ‘second opinion’. When
we say ‘I am not so sure’, it could be a word of caution offered by a more sober
internal impulse. The trouble is that the inner voice talks to us in a soft whisper,
and we cannot hear it in the downpour of the din of modern life. That is why
many mystics and saints stay silent, to be able to listen to what the Bible calls the
“still, small voice within”. Our external ‘wars’ are bloody events interspersed with
periods of ‘peace’, or absence of a war. The ‘war within’ is a continuum, without
any interregnum or interruption, sometimes intense and fierce, and sometimes
subdued and subtle, but always involuntary and effortless. If we do not know
who is fighting whom and what the rules of ‘warfare’ are, how can we take sides
or try to influence the outcome? But, maybe, it is extreme naiveté to think of
the inner struggle as a ‘fight’ or ‘war’, in the sense in which these words occur
in the external world. Both imply that one side must vanquish or destroy or
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
260
decimate the other side, or the opponent, and that we would be ‘better off’ if
we manage to eliminate the ‘bad’ side. This is a unique kind of ‘war’ that should
not conclude with a total victory or defeat of either of the two; that would be
a greater catastrophe than the war itself. ‘Both sides’, the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’
have legitimate roles to play as they are the two sides of the dwanda, and it
would be a catastrophe if one side manages to totally wipe out the other. Indeed,
one might even say that one can drive creative power from the tension of the
opposites, from the dialectics of dwanda. What has gone awry and what needs
to be promoted is ‘cooperative co-existence’ and ‘inner harmony’. This brings
up the timeless question: why do humans fight when they can share and live in
a spirit of synergy? Is it biological or evolutionary? We fight because we don’t
like sharing, whether it is food or shelter, fame or fortune, success or glory. It
is this inability to partake that is at the root of all friction, conflict, and war in
the world. We want to possess, own everything. Our mind likes exclusivity, not
inclusiveness.
Nature is providing us within our own selves what we ‘rationally’ seek
in daily life: choices, and alternatives before we ‘make up our minds’. The
only difference is that what we decide outside is a ‘conscious’ act, and what
happens within is opaque and impervious to our will and wish. We do not know
whether it is also ‘conscious’ but at a different level or depth of consciousness
or the ‘unconscious’, which also is in fact another dimension of consciousness.
Whichever is the way, we have to reckon with two realities: we have almost no
say in what transpires in the womb of our being, in the vortex of our vitals; and
whatever happens there manifests in the way we perceive, relate and connect
with everything external to our own selves. The key therefore is to get some hold
on the war within for a better world. That is why the Buddha said, “It is better
to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It
cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell”.
Kurukshetra—Arjuna’s War Within
An analogy often invoked to mirror the war within is the great Kurukshetra war
in the Indian epic Mahabharata. This war, which lasted 18 days, took place at
a place in North India called Kurukshetra. What is unique about this war was
The Two Cherokee Wolves Fighting Within
261
that it happened in the direct presence of the Divine, Lord Krishna, the only
perfect incarnation of Lord Vishnu. It resulted in all that horrific bloodshed,
killing of a brother by a brother, of a student by a teacher, of a grandson by a
grandfather, not to speak of tens of thousands of others. It was a war that not
even Lord Krishna could prevent, although it is open to question whether really
He could not or did not want to prevent. In the very end, Krishna asks Arjuna,
“O Dhanajaya! Conqueror of wealth, have you heard it with an attentive mind?
Have your ignorance and illusions been dispelled?” Of course, Arjuna said ‘yes’.
It is important to recognize that what dispelled Arjuna’s moral qualms about
fighting was not the answers and arguments of Krishna, but the absolute and
unconditional surrender of his ego at the Lord’s feet. It is also important to digest
the truth that Krishna’s real target audience was not just Arjuna, but all humanity
for all times. The goal of the Bhagavad Gita was not only to induce Arjuna to
‘win’ his war within, but also to help us ‘win’ our own inner spiritual wars.
The Kurukshetra war offered an opportunity to Lord Krishna to propound
the great Bhagavad Gita, which has served as a beacon and a balm for tens of
millions of people, some of whom, paradoxically, were pacifists like Tolstoy and
Thoreau and Emerson. Thoreau called it the ‘First of Books’. Gandhi said, “I have
received more nourishment from the Gita than my body has from my mother’s
milk”. Tens of thousands, including the ‘Narayana sena’ (Krishna’s own army),
were killed, through means fair and foul. Here is an important moral issue worth
noting. Krishna gave His own army to the evil Duryodhana, when the latter,
along with Arjuna, came to seek Krishna’s help. The intriguing question is, why
didn’t Krishna refuse to provide any assistance, and say that He would only help
the righteous side? The answers to such questions are that there are no absolutes,
even when it comes to good or evil, and one must choose sometimes among
conflicting compulsions. The right course for one person might not be right one
for another person in the same circumstance. And it is possible that for the same
question there could be more than one right answer, which is what quantum
physics now tells us. Each one must decide for oneself. That is why, it is so
important to have the right consciousness, and that is why, consciousness-change
is so important for correct decision-making. The moral message is that whether
we do good or bad, it is the motive and purpose that matters, and has to be done
regardless of whatever consequences, good or bad, that might follow. To a limited
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
262
extent, it does mean that the question of end versus means has to be resolved
contextually, governed by the overarching principle that the