I don't know much about what is ethics at all. It seems something that is too hard to be written in law book is termed as ethics. Or something that is duty but couldn't thought of as showering benefit in apparent exchange at person to person basis. I may have wrongly learned it as form of Virtue from Kant or what impression I have got from. But why virtue etc. Basically all social norms are protection from death or fear of death. As a society human may save themselves from other things but they may kill each other. Ethics may be just a passive way to save oneself from death or perceived threat of death or perceived fear of death of society at larger scale. If this is just connected to death or negative form of life then it is worst than anything else as it will cause more fear of death. etc.
I just don’t have the energy to write against the popular teaching (perhaps I have read the wrong books) that Hindu jurisprudence is contained within the Smriti, mainly the Manusmriti, and the property systems of the two schools — Mitakshara and Dayabhaga (I forget which region each school belongs to). But these are laws, not jurisprudence. I admit I do not know the subject of jurisprudence deeply — such a tragedy — but it seems to me these were laws made for the time and place according to the wisdom of the sages of that era. The Smriti writers themselves clearly said that the source of their understanding is the Veda. So, anyone who wants to understand exactly what truth Hindus hold must study the Vedas. Those who cannot may go through the Upanishads (major texts distilled by sages to teach the essence of the Jñāna part of the Veda). Those who still find that difficult may turn to the Mahabharata (which is in itself a “great battle” to understand), or they may study Mīmāṁsā, Nyāya-śā...
Comments
Post a Comment