Copyright © k.b.mann, from date of original creation: 20th May, 1999
It should be understood that ‘obligations’ and ‘responsibilities’ are somewhat lighter terms for duty. Such tasks and activities which need to be performed in one’s environment for everyday existence are duties. Familial, social, civic and professional responsibilities or obligations should also be considered duties. For example, keeping the home environment clean is the duty of a wife, as it is also of every other member of a family. Such are duties rather than services. A service is a voluntary and extraordinary undertaking which can be deemed above and beyond the call of duty. There is a need to distinguish between what is a normal moral responsibility or obligation, i.e., duty, and what is a heartfelt offering outside or above the scope of ordinary duty. Duties are like debts which must be paid, whereas services to ordinary human beings can be compared to charity and may even be called philanthropy. However, anyone who has not fulfilled all basic or essential duties is not legitimately qualified to offer his or her service in optional areas, just as someone who is delinquent in paying just debts or dues, is not legitimately qualified to make charitable or philanthropic donations or receive the merit thereof. In other words, anyone who shirks, disputes or disowns legitimate debts cannot be considered meritorious because they give some charity.
There are many people who neglect their basic duties or responsibilities, whether they are to family or the upkeep of the personal environment or pertaining to work or employment, but do engage themselves occasionally in being of some little service to others or in doing some little charity or in simply being kind and helpful to others now and then. These, they believe, will override their failure with regard to essential duties, and qualify them as good human beings. This is not the case. Neglect or avoidance of proper action in all areas of duty is never compensated for by other extraneous occasional good acts or intentions, nor by a religious or ascetic life. Any worker who is not conscientious and diligent in application to his responsibilities shall not have earned the wages he has received and, to that extent, is in debt. Worse still, he carries the burden of theft. Monks who abandon worldly duties and obligations, and live their lives on the honest earnings of others, even if these be through charities by any organized religion, incur a debt which will have to be discharged in this life or another.
Human life was divided into four stages in ancient Hinduism, and the fourth and last was set as Sanyās-āshram, a stage of renunciation of the world and of involvement only with spiritual growth. This was deemed fitting and proper only after a person had fulfilled all familial, social, civic and occupational obligations. Anyone who tries to escape these is a fugitive from duty, and thereby becomes subject to karmic law which enforces compensation for neglected or shirked duties until the lesson is learned. Thus, the eschewal of duty brings a very costly momentary comfort.
Genuine spiritual strides can occur only after becoming fundamentally ethical, which includes discharge of essential duties. Ethical (not necessarily moral)[1] behavior is an indispensable part of duty. A nun or monk involved in some sound educational, social, medical, or other truly beneficial, useful or productive work (excluding any customized religious or missionary work) with proper dedication, should not be considered to be living on charity.
From the foregoing, it should not be inferred that, in discharge of duties, postponement of one’s spiritual development is excusable. One’s spiritual advancement is and remains the prime duty of every human being which must be begun at the earliest possible age. This duty does not conflict with any other duty, and must not be deferred to the later years, as prescribed in the form of Sanyās-āshram. In fact, the more one fulfills this duty, the more excellent is one’s discharge of worldly duties. This certainly does not require physical renunciation at any stage. It is a condition of detachment in the midst of all worldly duties and activities.
That is all for now.
~~~~~~~
[1] Here the distinction between ethical and moral is that ethic is essentially conscience-directed, whereas morality is more often a varied blend of the ethical with social norms or mores. The variation of blends depends on each specific society, group or culture.
