Practical Rationality in Indian Thoughts (Article Review)

In this article, the author deals with theory of goals or the ends of actions or Purusarthas to
justify practical rationality of it.
Theory of Rationality is a theory of norms, criteria and principles of criticism by which beliefs
and practices are justified or rejected, alternately, improved upon and/or modified. Theory of
practical rationality is a part of general theory of rationality and is concerned with actions and
practices. In tradition we find formal rationality which is universal, lacks material content and
that non-formal, substantial rationality is based on socially given values and goals that are
chosen. They are not derived from the principles of formal rationality. On understanding the
difference between both i.e. formal rationality and material, theoretical and practical principles,
there are possibilities that one may reject both; the initial wholesale rejection and the subsequent
wholesale acceptance and justification in favour of Hermeneutic Legitimization of tradition.
Hermeneutic Legitimization can be understood as interpretation and acceptability of particular
tradition from time to time. This is the point of view adopted in this essay.
Hermeneutic Legitimization is based on following principles. 1. There is no access to tradition.
Even to one’s own tradition. Tradition can be saved only through interpretation. 2. A tradition is
not a text, belief or moral value, thus there are possibilities of deriving multiple interpretations
from the same. 3. Difference between orthodoxy and liberalism is that, orthodoxy depends on the
view that a tradition has its own only one right interpretation while liberalism allows necessary
possibility of many different interpretations and so rejects the idea of only one right meaning or
interpretation. 4. The idea of multiple interpretations needs to be sharpened. This are just view
points, from particular angle. The liberal interpreter ascribes meaning to the text or tradition both
then and now. The orthodox or conservative would disallow the idea of other possibilities.
Based on above three points this essay is reformulated on hermeneutic legitimization. Here the
initial meaning of text or tradition is completely set aside and, then it is justified by appealing
pseudo-science. There is first extensive rejection and then justification of orthodox idea of the
text or tradition through pseudo science. Next step is to understand the other possibilities of
interpreting the tradition, which are aligned with scientific rationalistic critique and which do not
require justification in the name of scientific- rationalistic prejudice. This reinterpretation
proceeds in two stages: 1. Reinterpretation of the very concept of tradition; 2. Reinterpretation of
the specific contents of tradition, in this case, the Hindu Tradition.
As and when community comes under the influence of modernization its member’s exhibits
following three attitudes towards its tradition. First, there is a wholesale rejection of tradition in
the name of reason and science. Rejection of tradition based on failure to give justification to
criticism. There is a possibility of some secret scientificity to follow particular tradition in
respective manner. The Tradition was completely overlooked by modern rationalist, as their
exclusive focus was on formal rationality. They hoped that the free self can freely provide itself
with content which can be deduced from the practical principles of formal rationality. As per
Kantian principle, given the principle of universalizability, the content of moral rules can be
deduced from it. But this is not justified.
The Gita’s principle of duty of oneself or non-attachment is concerned with HOW of ethical life,
is not based on principled deduction of the content, or the WHAT of morality.According to
Hegel the bedrock foundation of given Sittlichkeit of a community is based on fundamental
moral principles, values and ends. The Philosopher cannot put them as a rationality which
antedates it and logically prior to it. In Hindu Tradition Dharma provides this Sittlichkeit, whose
logical or historical origin cannot be penetrated, the basic concepts can be interpreted, but not
justified.
AN ATTEMPT AT A REINTERPRETATION:
To reinterpret is to give new meaning. As per Hindu Tradition the four goals of life, the
Purusarthas are Artha, Kama, Dharma, Moksa. The first three goals are suppose to be
intersubjective sociality whereas Moksa is possibly a goal that can be achieved in isolation.
Artha: ‘Artha’ means various things. All arrays of ends and means come under artha. Here there
is fundamental relation of means and ends, where means are work and end is satisfaction. Artha
means work, advantage, profit, utility, the useful reward, gain, property, wealth, money; also
thing, object, matter, case: meaning and purpose. Work is the basis of all artha and time is the
basis of all work. According to Kautilya’s Arthashashtra artha is the livelihood of humans. It
also means land possessed by humans. In Canakyasutra it is said that kingdom i.e. state, territory,
society is the foundation, the origin of artha. Action is the root of artha. The agent of action
should know time. Action is based on pramanas i.e. perception and reasoning. The objective
knowledge or pramanas which is used to examine the prospect of work aims at the fruits i.e.
enjoyment or lessening sufferings.
Artha is not merely making money or wealth, but there lies a deeper understanding of nature of
self. The self who pursue goal of artha is rooted to land, subject to kingdom, belongs to a society
take part in commercial activities to earn livelihood by learning through experience in the past
and try to secure his future. Thus, he is very well aware about intrinsic temporality of his being
in the world and with others. The basic intentionality of a person is desire (Iccha) which gives
rise to cesta efforts (Prayatna) and finally to act whose fruits he enjoys and suffers.
Hegel in his Phenomenology saw the true nature striving after artha as desire. Self-consciousness
at this stage is desire. The object of desire is to acquire material stuff, is also a type of self
consciousness. This desire is for struggle of life and death, no dialectic of lordship or bondage,
but an attempt to reach a harmonious intersubjectivity. The basic nature of desire is future
oriented in consideration with past. The present is just the dividing line between what no more is
and what is not yet. The desire which is there in artha should be altruistic and benevolent and for
public good instead of selfish or personal greed. It should comprehend others subject as means.
Kama: Kama represents higher form of self consciousness. It is also a desire not as a means but
as an end in itself. The desire than becomes love. The person who love and who is being loved
neither of this two are pure self. Both are embodied. The object and subject of love is embodied
subjectivity. Thus it is subject of love. The intersubjectivity is intercorporeality. The word kama
also means intention, pleasure, benefit which is voluntarily or intentionally. Kama begins with
desire, in search for pleasure but ends in love where the desire is transformed into self-surrender
and becomes apprehension of rasa as in aesthetic experience.
Dharma: Dharma is said as duty – ought to do. It is cleansing of one’s being and virtual
actualization. Dharma deepens the self consciousness. It begins as desiring ego and ends as
desireless ego. The agent of Dharma is embodied self, in the total circumference of his individual
and social existence. He accepts the Sittichkeit of his community as his own, abides by the rules
imposed by it, and plays his role in relation to himself and to the gods. He does not let oneself by
desires and passions. Here desires are regarded as capable of being held in rein by playing social
roles, performing social roles performing religious rituals, self directed obligations, cultivating
desirelessness and sense of equality.
The ethical life has to be transformed in two fold manners in order to be truly moral. Firstly, the
conventional do’s and don’ts do’s should be cultivated for the personal and inner directed
virtues, which according to Gita are foremost; they are purity charity and austerity. Secondly, the
cultivation of two highest virtues: equality and compassion. It means not love for the beloved,
but compassion for all beings. These two cardinal values belong to Hinduism and Buddhism
Moksa: Moksa is egolessness i.e. a life of the transcendental subjectivity as the constituting
source of all worldly reality. There are two routes of moksa, one through Dharma and other
through Kama. There is a poetic path of love, of rasa leading up to santa rasa then on to
egolessness. The other path is through purification of soul through dharma and then through
meditation on the truth of self on to egolessness.
INTERSUBJECTIVITY OF FOUR PURUSARTHAS
The intersubjectivity of artha is work, labour, means, end, exchange and so on, while that of
kama is the recognition of other as an end in itself as worthy of love. Artha begins and ends with
desire. Kama begins as desire, becomes desireless desire and ends as love. The highest principle
of artha is utility principle, happiness of mankind. Kama places highest value of love towards
others and finds complete satisfaction in the experience of rasa. It seeks universality in particular.
Artha and kama are to be overcome by dharma. Dharma provides a necessary foundation for
ethical life. In this idea of reinterpreting the idea of four ends, a simple linear progression has
been given. Each of the four ends allows internal differentiation into phases of deepening as well
as of extensiveness. The Artha, Kama, Dharma are not said as requirement that humans ought to
pursue, but it is a path that most of them pursue, may be sometimes not completely.
The artha perpetuate itself to the infinity or may lead to the boredom and a breakthrough to a
different path i.e. kama or dharma. In the same manner, kama due to various reason related to
love towards beloved lead to exhaustion of emotional reservoir or disappointment moves on to
either dharma or back to artha. Dharma is supposed to be perpetuating itself without generating
boredom or exhaustion are some of the reasons where dharma comes to the grief. One, through
internal conflict in the system of dharma; another is the boredom of role playing and rule
following and a consequent search for inner spontaneity. A skeptical questions may ensue with
regards to the tradition being followed monotonously again and again, heaven and hell, papa and
punya, after life, rebirth and karma and so on.
Practically, artha can be said as an end when the goal is reached and dharma as a virtuous life
that never ends and nor aim at any particular achievement; kama is desire and it is at the root of
all that is practical. Each of artha, kama and dharma begins with desire, but as desire is refined
each undergoes a transformation. When the desire underlying kama is transformed, it becomes
aesthetic experience. Moksa stands apart as a possibility beyond the theoretical-practical
distinction. Each of artha through the idea of universal utility and general welfare, of maximum
altruism, kama through experience of rasa and dharma through egoless performance of duty – all
points to this goal.
A life based on dharma can be freed from negative vicissitudes and one may switch one’s
attitude from that of morality to aesthetics. The life of ascetic emphasis on cleanliness, external
and internal, purity, self control, temperance, sense of equality and compassion may turn out to
be a ‘beautiful soul.’
CONCEPT OF RATIONALITY IN PURUSARTHAS
Artha, kama, dharma has its own intrinsic rationality.
Artha: The rationality of artha is at first the rationality of classical economic theory –
maximising utility for oneself. Altruism and utilitarian ethics opens new dimensions of the
rationality of artha. Economics here is not just all about what modern economist talks about i.e.
maximization of egoistic advantages, but rather to go beyond it, to work for common good also.
Kama: It has its own rationality. Unlimited desire for other leads one to exercise power and
negate itself. Desireless desire or love is based on recognition of the other as an end in itself, and
finding oneself in other on the idea of desireless ego.
Dharma: The rationality of dharma is based on the idea of desireless ego which is in accordance
with the tradition Sittlichkeit, builds a rational life through rules and inner sphere of purity and
noble altruistic emotions. Dharma belongs to social ethics. Thus this lay basis for social
existence along with prepare individual for transcendent. It has limited rationality. It has no
foundation. Thus it is groundless. The transcendence into moksa leaves dharma unaffected.
Moksa: Philosophical thinking of darsanas mostly focused primarily on moksa and ignored
dharma tradition. Yet to understand, life is more determined by dharmas, while moksa will
always remained in the distant horizon, unreachable, but worthy of praise. The presence of
liberated persons for e.g. Buddha transformed the entire society. So moksa is not entirely
transcendent idea, but has also social importance.
The difference between virtuous person practicing non-injury and the person who has attained
moksa can be explained through following conceptualizations through Buddhist distinction
between the compassion of Sravaka, who follows rules and the groundless compassion of the
Samyakbuddha.
According to author, Dharma belongs to social ethics. The rationality consists of respecting the
wisdom of the tradition to which one belongs. Dharma has not the authority of Sruti.
Philosophical thinking leads them to criticism, when that criticism is internal to the tradition.
There are two ways of criticizing tradition. Some components of dharma are not consistent with
some fundamental concepts of sruti and so need to revised or rejected in total. For example the
Varna Theory was reinterpreted by Gandhiji as a theory of not the hierarchy status but a system
of family inherited skills, so ordered as to avoid a competitive economic system. Vinoba Bhave
considered this as an example of non-violent revolution of thoughts.
The Sannyasin or renunciant who is free from the constraints of social roles and rules and have
not yet attained moksa. This figure yields a new perspective, from which being in the world
acquires meaning and surrenders its claim to universal validity. In the practical path there is a
series of selfhood, the person sees one’s reflection in the other, the inner self consisting of a
temporarily unfolding mental life in which the unity of an ego is constituted, and a
transcendental subjectivity for which the ego, one’s own or the other, is a construct without
ontological finality.
Therefore, to conclude, any tradition will live in time if it is reinterpreted accordingly. Referring
to the Hindu tradition here, the basic meaning and procedure are those mentioned in the
Scriptures to be logically and scientifically understood and applied accordingly. The survival of
one of the traditions is based on these aspects. Rigidity in following tradition in an orthodox way
will hinder the survival of a particular tradition. One has to be flexible over time and with
generations.