Guest guest Posted March 20, 1996 Report Share Posted March 20, 1996 Over the past week or so, there has been a number of heated exchanges on many controversial aspects of our sampradaya. To this let me pose a few questions for us to further investigate. Is ethics and dharma the same? When we refer to "sanatana dharma," is it fair to translate that as "eternal ethics?" Webster defines ethics as: eth.ic \'eth-ik\ n [ME ethik, fr. MF ethique, fr. L ethice, fr. Gk e-thike]-, fr. e-thikos pl but sing or pl in constr 1: the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation 2a: a set of moral principles or values 2b: a theory or system of moral values pl but sing or pl in constr 2c: the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group By this definition, are our Rishis, our Alwars and our Acharyas "ethical" people? In otherwords, are their moral principles, their systme of moral values, and the principles of conduct, the same principles that we would like to see in our children and rest of humanity? Consider the following alternative view. Suppose ethics and dharma are not synonymous. Certainly the Vedas talk about the notion of sanatana dharma. Do they similarly talk about ethics? Perhaps then, our poorvacharyas and our Alwars are NOT ethical people in the modern sense of the word, but are still are men of "dharma?" In otherwords, are they adherents to "sanatana dharma?" (whatever that means). Now if our poorvacharyas are NOT ethical people (because the Vedas do not teach them), then based on what independent "logical" framework do we, as members of the 20-21rst century, argue that we ought to be "ethical" and follow the ethics of the present century? Perhaps, then santana dharma is really telling us that we ought to follow the ethics suited to the times. In this view, dharma is really changing, but it is sanatana in the sense that it is ALWAYS changing. Somewhat perverse logic, but perhaps ok (in some twisted way). In this viewpoint, there is no "superior" ethical perspective. One adopts the ethics and morals suitable for that time. There is nothing inherently "good" or "evil" about any view, becausee tomorrow, if there is sufficient majority, the view can be modified. Consider yet another alternative viewpoint. Suppose that the Poorvacharyas and our Saints were men of dharma, but not of ethics. And suppoe that Vedas do tell us how to follow BOTH dharma, as well as ethics, then I ask, who do we look upon as individuals of singular merit and good deed to guide us? It does require further thought that our Vedas and Sruti are passed down from individuals who merely "mouth the words" but do not live it. What belief can we place on imperfect men, especially since we have no means of ascertaining the full nature of their imperfectness. Finally, let's suppose that our poorvacharyas were really not perfect men, and neither are our Sruti. Suppose all are "approximating Truth." Suppose each offers their own "brand of Truth." Thus, since God is so beyond comprehension, only approximations are ever possible (vid Ne iti, Ne iti). Thus, in this framework , it can be argued that one should treat our acharyas with rspect insofar as they were men who "sought to approximate," but not because of the particular "values" they intuited. In this mode of interpretation, we seek from our poorvacharyas a guidance that coupled with our own experiences, we arrive at the "Grand Truth." Thus, a case can be made for rationalism within the context of our traditon of inquiry. However, if this is really the "true" mode of interpretation, then all forms of interpretation are equally valid. Since, every interpretation is an expressionof ones personal experience, tehre is no one viewpoint, be it on the nature of Brahman,or the nature of man (i.e. society), that is any superior than the next. Ethics, in this frame, is NOT absolute, but rather shaped intimately by ones own personal experiences. One can learn from it, but one cannot fiat it on others. After all, how can one impart one's experience to someone else. After all, we can only experience God ourselves -- no one can experience it for us. This brings my final point. There has been some vitriolic rmarks made against some individuals who have posted on this net. I feel that no matter what logical frame one takes (e.g. the frames of references suggested above, there is no cause for this. Everyone sees God differently and everyone is entitled to express their viewpoint without condemnation. We can learn from everyone's experiences and in this manner, wee may all find Truth. Howver, the caustic nature of some of the responses may make many shy to express their views. The sad part is that most of the views that have been expressed (I dare say all the views expressed so far) are views shared by many members of our own families. One need not go to Ramanuja's times. Our own grandfathers, uncles, mothers, fathers etc. had views that many of you onth net have objected. However, I think that tone of the e-mails and the sharpness of the rebukes tends to make us forget how close to home all these views are. The impersonaility of the e-mail allows one to make replies that one would otherwise not make in person. Individuals whom one would otherwise address as Mama, Mami, Uncle, Aunti, become Mr. This and Mrs. That. Due reverence to age and experience that is so integral a feature of our culture wash away in the millions of impersonal bits and bytes that convey our thoughts. Clearly, culture is not santana. It is not within the purview of ethics, but of aesthetics. It may not be the Truth, but atleast it has provided us a base for well over five millenniaia to explore it with freedom. Let's not so easily disgard it without due consideration. sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.