Who's to decide what's right?

Disclaimer: Just my two cents worth. I'm no theologian and may have made serious mistakes, especially in my understanding of the faiths which are new to me. It is also not my intention to demonstrate the superiority or inferiority of any faiths or to cause any hard feelings to develop. Please read this entry with an open mind

During the course of the semester, I read about different world religions which influence and shape the courses of many lives in today's context. As I read about the morality prescribed by each faith, and the opinions of those who believe that all religions supposedly teach 'good', I can't help but conclude that without a Being of higher intelligence and authority, everything is subjective and there can be no absolute 'good'.

The fulfillment of one's dharma is central to the Hindu faith. It is the key to escape samsara - the vile cycle of life and suffering. To practice dharma, the Hindu is expected to fulfil his or her responsibilities in the social group he or she is in.

Traditionally, these duties are determined by birth into a particular social group or caste groups called jatis. The caste system consisted of four hierarchical divisions, namely the Brahmans, rulers and warriors, merchants and farmers, and labourers. However, in today's context, we have a society more complex than the caste system. How, then, does a Hindu internalises this practice into his or her life?

It is written in page 145 of my assigned text, 'No practices can be said to be universal for all Hindus'. On the same page, Gerald Larson pointed out that being religious for the Hindu is sometimes called 'orthopraxy' - correct action.

However, there are no clear indications of the confines of correct actions. How does a Hindu tell right from wrong? Does righteousness entail only economical success? Or does righteousness involve loving fellow man and doing charitable acts? Who's to decide what responsibilities fall under the Hindu's social class?

Confucianism's principle teacher, Master K'ung (Kung Fu-Tzu), emphasized the importance of li as the fulfillment of human existence and the way to attain jen. 'Proper' behavior patterns include etiquette, social propriety, morals, laws and rites which will bring harmony to the self and between heaven and earth.

In a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic world, how does one decide which values and activities are in congruence with one's li? Confucian scholars suggest that we take reference from the following verse, taken from Analects 2:11, "He who by reanimating the old can gain knowledge of the new is fit to be a teacher".

In my opinion however, there is a serious flaw in seeking morality from history. With thousands of years of history to look to, how does one decide which specific point to take reference from? Further, many pages of the vile history of humanity is smeared with bloodshed. To take an example, the Ancient Maya Civilization in Mexico had a history of human sacrifice to prevent the end of the world. Does that mean that modern Mexicans should view ritual murder as morally right and, therefore, practice it to as a fulfillment of one’s li?

The point I'm getting at is this: Dharma and Li are ambiguous and subjective practices. Where can the pious look to for a moral compass?

From a Christian point of view, God decides what's right and what's not. I guess it should be safe to say that anything that glorifies God is right, and anything that does it not. I used to struggle with this thought: doesn't that make God very 'selfish'? But Rev Martin Yee cleared my doubts during one of his sermons when he explained that mankind needs some kind of a higher reference Point, that is, God. After studying the various faiths, I think it becomes clearer that we undeniably need God.