View From the Top > Esteemed Reader

The Way is unattainable. I vow to attain it.
—Fourth Bodhisattva Vow

Esteemed Reader of Our Magazine:
Humanity is ever-seeking a conclusive definition of right action. We want to know, finally, how we should live—or perhaps how we can live—as the human race and life on earth are surely at a crossroads. We see we must find a sustainable mode of existence now or be denied the chance altogether. Is there a fixed moral code by which humanity can live? Or will we ever be driven by opposing views into the resulting strife? These are the perennial questions.

Because of the diversity of sources of moral information, there are perpetual disagreements about morality. And it is precisely because of differing tacit moral underpinnings that there is such strife between peoples. What in one culture is considered good is believed bad in another. Ironically, in the midst of the killing, if each side of a conflict is asked what they want, they will say “the good, of course.” In one bizarre instance a Fijian tribe recently apologized to the descendents of a missionary whom they had cooked and eaten some decades earlier for the obvious (to them) capital offense of touching their leader’s head. But examples are ubiquitous both in world news and in the minutia of our daily interactions.

Societal mores, which vary so much from place to place, are examples of the most subjective—which is to say the lowest level—of moral information. They are more like cultural habits (like a nun’s garment). In Scotland men wear skirts while in Missouri a man might be lynched for it. In some places polygamy is acceptable and in others not. Some consider circumcision civilized, others barbaric. Some call the ineffable source Allah while others say Elohim. With so-called moral justification peoples annihilate one another. But the conflict is actually one of misunderstanding each other’s habits. This level of morality doesn’t describe any objective right and wrong. It simply describes the narrow-mindedness of what we are used to.

Which is not to say that all subjective morality is ignorant and destructive. It provides the appurtenance wherein members of a society can relate with one another. For instance in places without toilet paper it makes hygienic sense that everyone wipe with the left hand and eat (or shake hands) with the right. Or that everyone drives on the right (or left) side of the road. When a practical solution to coexistence becomes dogmatic, however, it becomes destructive. Religion is rampant with examples of once practical (or at least meaningful) ideas and practices that have become ignorant beliefs and empty rituals. What keeps these vestigial apparatuses in place is the conviction that deviation or even questioning is heretical or criminal.

There is a higher level of morality—an objective morality—that is reflected (though not contained) in certain ancient formulations. They are marked by a sense of universal applicability. The Golden Rule—Love your brother/sister as yourself—which has an equivalent in almost every culture, is an example. Or the Islamic core proclamation La illaha il’allah (Arabic) which loosely translates to “There is nothing but the One Reality.” Or the pillar of Zoroastrianism: Humata hukta huvarashta (Avestan)—“Think Truth; Speak Truth; Act on Truth.”
These expressions provide only glimpses of an objective morality. In fact there is no formula or system that can contain it. The Zen saying states (even self-referentially) “Do not mistake the finger pointing at moon, for the moon.” The truth of what is and what is needed is alive. It is dynamic—ever changing in each succeeding moment. To find a truly appropriate and moral response requires that the attention be active in each moment, because in each moment everything changes.

The means of connecting to a morality that is objective is conscience. We are born with this faculty, but it is sleeping. It is that in us which knows what is true and what is needed. Conscience is always speaking to us, but softly. Any noise of thought or the turbulence of an agenda drown out its “still, small voice.” Conscience is what receives the direct transmission of the truth that is articulated in the perennial philosophy, whose truth is living, dynamic, requiring great vigilance to apprehend. There is no higher calling for a human being than to strive to hear and heed its revelation.

—Jason Stern