Comments on: Dissecting Contextual Morality : Part 1

By: Dharma 101: A Critique » Seriously Sandeep

Dharma 101: A Critique » Seriously Sandeep — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:12:23 +0000

[...] What is Dharma ?Dharma is about righteousness of actions. It is about righteousness which is universal and eternal i.e. it is invariant of time (when the action took place), place (where the action took place) and context (why the action took place). The etymology of Dharma is derived from the root Dhr, meaning to sustain, to uphold, to protect, to preserve, etc. As I have mentioned earlier, this ties in neatly with the conception of Rta or the force that sustains the Cosmic Order. Accordingly, when we say a person has attained Brahman or Ultimate Realization, it simply means he is perfectly in tune with Rta and understands how the entire universe is ordered, and has transcended the limitations of space and time. A person who intensely aspires to reach this state is also known as Mumukshu or one who aspires for Moksha. The goal of Dharma therefore, is Moksha (liberation from the constraints of space and time). How a particular action or deed constitutes Dharma needs to be measured against this yardstick. However, this is a very high ideal to attain and the constraints of space and time are loaded against it at every step. Which is why we have two broad divisions of Dharma as Saamanya Dharma (Universal or generic) and Vishesha Dharma (special, contingent). From this we can conclude that Dharma is an universal umbrella of values, or more fundamentally, Dharma is both a conception of, and a criticism of values as we shall see. [...]

By: » Weekend Musings - Dharma 101 | Offstumped

» Weekend Musings - Dharma 101 | Offstumped — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:38:24 +0000

[...] Reason# 2 - Contextual Morality which keeps popping up as the Indian way of justifying and rationalizing (Sandeep has a good post on this) [...]

By: Do Indians have Contextual Morality? | DesiPundit

Do Indians have Contextual Morality? | DesiPundit — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:15:25 +0000

[...] In an Rediff column, T C A Srinivasa-Raghavan wrote that the absence of moral absolutism enables Indians to justify everything. This concept was based on an article by the poet A K Ramanujam, which according to Mr. Ragahavan is the “the best ever written on the subject of how Indians decide on the morality of their actions.” In a three part post (1, 2, 3), Sandeep shows evidence of universal principles in Indian philosophy and explains why Ramanujam’s contextual morality concept is flawed. AKR’s omission of other Hindu treatises is as misleading as it serves its purpose of proving his point about contextual morality. The Sikshavalli of the Taittirya Upanishad clearly urges adolescent students to always speak the truth, follow righteousness, treat parents as God, respect elders, behave with dignity and courtesy in public…all qualities of the “universality” AKR regards so highly. What does this say about a society where childhood/adolescent education imparted this kind of foundation? Hundreds of Rg Vedic verses repeatedly stress on right conduct, morality, universal (yes!) prosperity, honouring only the good, harmony with all beings, and peace upon the entire universe. I can quote numerous such instances from several other sources but that’ll only be superfluous. [...]

By: Seriously Sandeep » Archive » Dissecting Contextual Morality: Part 3

Seriously Sandeep » Archive » Dissecting Contextual Morality: Part 3 — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:15:36 +0000

[...] Read Part 1 [...]

By: Sandeep

Sandeep — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:05:23 +0000

Srikanth,

Thanks for commenting.

My point is not so much about the fact that AKR calls Indians as contextually moral people but the way he builds his case. And that is a bluff we need to call.

Two, the fact that people like TCA Raghavan still think it is some kind of magic explanation for most phenomena in India shows that AKR’s flawed postulate has some (minimal) currency.

I’m not sure what gave you the impression that I wrote it out of angst.

>>I’m not sure if AKR said either directly or indirectly that absolute moralities are superior,
Yes he did, directly, in so many words.

By: Seriously Sandeep » Archive » Dissecting Contextual Morality: Part 2

Seriously Sandeep » Archive » Dissecting Contextual Morality: Part 2 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:59:16 +0000

[...] Links and Stuff « Dissecting Contextual Morality : Part 1 [...]

By: kaangeya

kaangeya — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:29:50 +0000

Sandeep,

Excellent. AKR sadly is no longer, or it would be fun to take his fluff apart, as we must with another ignoramus extraordinaire from the past - T. G. Vaidyanathan. AKR’s puerile tracts must be collectively titled An Idiot’s Guide to Indian Culture - Written by an Idiot. I await the rest of your post.

By: Srikanth

Srikanth — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:35:31 +0000

Hi Sandeep,

I understand your deep feelings here.. But you can observe that the “contextual morality” is actually the more sophisticated than absolute. In fact, civilization evolves away from moral absolutes - and this is something we see happening around us. I’m not sure if AKR said either directly or indirectly that absolute moralities are superior, but if he did, you’ll be glad to note that he and this school of thought have been irrelevant even before he wrote it. Sure, ’scholars’ from the Commitee on Social Thought may not think so, but the rest of humanity does and that’s who matters ultimately.

Let me give you an example. If morality is practiced as an absolute then killing another human being should always be punished alike. Right?

Well, look at all the gradations even within any country with “Hegelian” laws.. I can think of at least 5 distinct examples.
- “Accidental death”
- “Involuntary manslaughter”
- “Death due to negligence”
- “Murder in a moment of anger/passion”
- “Pre-meditated murder”

Each of these is prosecuted, judged and punished differently ! So, whether it’s the east or the west, context defines everything. And irrespective of what ‘coconut’ philosophers write or say, their opinions are not relevant even within their lifetimes in their adopted homelands.

Do analyze their writings, but why feel angst about them?