It’s amazing how easy it is to misunderstand when the mind is disturbed. Until Covid reared its ugly head by the will, some might say grace (the pharmaceutical companies, for instance) of God, complaints about ShiningWorld, apart from many dualists, were virtually non-existent. People who were ready understood what Vedanta is saying and ShiningWorld keeps growing peacefully. When the virus reared its ugly head, probably 20% disagreed with its views about vaccination and social distancing but because of goodwill only three or four out of thousands voiced their displeasure.
This short essay is not an argument for or against the virus or the vaccine. Instead, it is an attempt to help inquirers, who are troubled by inoculation mandates by governments and businesses, to understand one of life’s fundamental principles: the needs of the total come first. This principle stands above an individual’s concept of right and wrong. The law of eminent domain is a good example. If two cities conclude that private property stands in the way of a road that they deem necessary for their financial security, for instance, they can confiscate the property after fairly compensating the individual or individuals.
But this principle operates ubiquitously. If I want a job in a business I need to abide by its rules. If I am a family member I need to abide by its rules, more often than not, the will of the primary breadwinner usually a male. However, sometimes what’s good for the goose is good for the gander because the mother wields the power. If two people at an auction want the same item, the one with the most money wins. This principle is not right or wrong. It is just a common sense law that allows the total to function. There needs to be such a rule or society, which we need, since everything we value comes from others, won’t survive. No man is an island. Society itself is neither good or bad, it is just a fact.
While this rule is often violated, it is always defeated in the fulness of time. Minorities that flout it, inevitably lose power. Majorities that flaunt it inevitably lose power. Nothing stays the same over time, except the non-dual principle. Power only enjoys moral status when it serves the higher non-dual principle, the universal expectation of non-injury. Otherwise it just is. A positive formulation of this expectation is the golden rule; do unto others as you would have them do to you.
So how does an inquirer handle the agitation arising from the feeling that he or she is forced to unfairly suffer at the hands of the majority? Because, an inquirer is seeking a solution that transcends right and wrong, he or she needs to see how his or her views are generated by an adherence to the dualistic principle. Rebelling against the opposite thought only means that one is rebelling against some part one’s self. Understanding, not rebellion, is the only solution.
Yes, worldly people are free to rebel till their heat is content but an inquirer doesn’t have that luxury because he or she is seeking a contemplative mind. Spiritual growth, which eventually leads to freedom from the mind, is only accomplished by a clear quiet mind. So true inquirers are eager to let go of small self-centered views that hamper their growth.
Yes, it is certainly possible that a reasonable person may have a legitimate reason for fighting against an unwanted idea, in which case he or she will not feel persecuted and growth will continue. At the same time, it is easier for a person who is attached to the idea that what he or she feels is right to cling to a point of view that impedes his or her spiritual growth. As far as the preponderance of the evidence goes, while it is clear that the virus kills, there is scant evidence that vaccines kill. Yes, an individual may die from a vaccine, but obviously the survival of the human race is not at stake since 9 billion doses of the vaccine have been administered to 4 billion people and the population of the earth is not declining.
For fifty years of my adult life I was totally committed to fighting affluenza, which included a complete boycott on pharmaceuticals of all ilk, except the odd aspirin or antibiotic. It seemed “right.” About ten years ago I was diagnosed with stable angina, given quintuple bypass surgery and provided with a regimine of medicines designed to prevent strokes and heart attacks, which seemed “wrong,” at the time, so I threw away the medicines and kept to my healthy lifestyle. Two years ago my blood pressure was sky high and the doctor proscribed the same medicines, which I take religiously and which now seem “right.”
Should I feel guilty because I am a sell out? Should I stick by my previous principle and go down with the ship? Of course not. We are all going down with the ship in the fulness of time. Life itself is beautiful with and without my principles, with and without pills.
Would you rather be “right” or happy?