Srini
I watched most of the links Surya had provided on the subject of 'Justice' by Prof Michael Sandel. The idea of utilitarian, libertarian and Kantian thoughts underlying the idea of justice in western democracies was very well brought out by him. Great quality stuff. Kant seems to come very close to Indian thoughts on the subject.
Surya
Thank you my friend Srini. Did you notice the number of people who have seen 'Justice' - it is closing in on 5.5 million! That is astounding, no?
For those interested, here is the link again:
Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER"
Arch
Good lecture! Philosophy and Justice are parallel tracks in my view. An act socially justifiable may not be legally right. Personally i think sacrifice of one for the survival of many may be the right thing though legally not acceptable. I do not know. may be it is. Who knows? I'm not a legal person. I wish we had Mr. Narayanasamy lecturing Engineering Economics, the way Michael Sandel does!
J.P.
veppa mara uchiyil niinu peyonnu adudhinnu vilayada pogumbodhu solli vaippanga .un veeratha muliyileya killi vaipanga..velaitra veenargalin .................
Arch
There is a reason behind that type of upbringing. Otherwise, kids would have started to doubt about the existence of God. May be that's why we were all taught that way.
J.P.
I do not agree with you in that regard.god is no way related with ghost. Who said all religion are teaching good things. There are some vested interest behind that.
Surya
To you point about suspect motivations, which swami amongst these do you like the best? Each of these is a true scenario:
1. Swami who gives up his millions to become one (written up in the NY times this weekend)
2. Swami who gives up his swami-dom to found an energy drink company and become a billionaire? (5-hour energy drink founder)
3. Swami who had no choice, and found become a swami a good career? (Institutionalist Swamis)
4. A swami who does not call himself (or herself) a swami (Mendicant_
5. A swami who does not look like a swami, but is a swami (King Janaka)
J.P.
In my view, every person is god/swamiji .
Kanchana
Very beautifully Surya had addressed....
Jp..hope you know this story of King Janaka....
King Janaka: The Milk Story
Raja Janaka was a God-Realized King. He is teaching us to have detachment in any circumstances and have a pure attention based on dharma (inner religion and moral conduct) and the Spirit.
“You know King Janaka was called ‘Vidheha’ (means also ‘dead’ or ‘eliberated from the body’). Great sage Narada asked him one day, ‘ Revered Sir, how are you called as Vidheha, you live in this world, how can you be a Vidheha?’ Raja Janaka said,’this is very simple. I will tell you about it in the evening. Now, please do this little job for me. There is milk in this bowl. You take this bowl & come along with me. Please see that not a single drop of milk is spilled on the Earth. Then only I will tell you why I am called Vidheha’. Narada took the bowl & followed Janaka everywhere. He had to be very careful because the bowl was such that by the slightest movement the milk might have spilled. He got very tired. When they returned in the evening,
Narada asked ‘Please tell me now, I am quite fed up with carrying this bowl & following you everywhere at the same time.`
Raja Janaka said, `First of all tell me what you have seen?’
Narada, `Nothing except this bowl of milk so that it won’t spill.`
Raja Janaka, “Didn’t you see, there was a big procession in my honour, then there was a court wherein, there was programme of dancing? Didn’t you see anything?
Narada said, “No sir, I have not seen anything”.
Raja Janaka, `My child, likewise with Me, I also see nothing. All the time, I just watch my attention. Where is it going? Making sure that it won’t spill away like the milk.`
“This sort of attention one has to develop: chitta nirod’. Nirod means the saving of your attention, so your attention should not be on saving money & worldly things and all that, but attention itself must be saved. As you watch your money, as you watch your road when you drive, as you watch your child, when it is growing, as you watch the beauty of your wife, or the care of your husband, all put together you watch your Self – your attention.”
Surya
Excellent Kanchana.
Also, J.P., I wonder if you would elaborate?
In particular if we take the actions of, say Jack The Ripper and then compare it to the actions of King Janaka as referred to in Kanchana's story - would you consider both the same ? And could you please elucidate why?
Am using an extreme example above to better understand your point of view.
Srini
The idea that dreaded sinners are not divine is not acceptable ! Ravana and Hiranya were considered avatars of the gate keepers of Vishnu ! And when they died they were supposed to have merged with the divine. Besides, there can be another angle (as is usual to my boring take on these) - its like in a dream. After you wake up the merit of your actions in your dream and the demerits don't count for anything ! Sorry i could not resist jumping in (unless reprimanded by the Boss, of course). Of course these are not politically correct views and cannot be defended beyond a point in a public forum!
Surya
Let me throw in a few examples - please defend.
1. Ajmal Kasab
2. Pol Pot
3. Charles Manson
One additional question: would you agree that a criminal should be punished? Why?
Srini
You are seeing the fact of our describing the sinner as also 'divine' as glorification or justification of his acts? It is neither. Ravana and Hiranya were not glorified or justified. Justice was done to them. But that does not take away the point about their being 'divine'
The desire to be free from cruelty is fulfilled only in non-dual (no one to perpetrate and to receive) and not in duality. So it is valid as an urge but invalid as an utopian concept to be achieved in this world. But still the attempt to bring the violent ones to justice is also part of the divine scheme. When I think sinless world is utopian, it does not mean that one should not constantly strive for it. One should strive for it and at times one may succeed and at times one may fail. But violence and strife for justice are both co-eval and eternal ?
Surya
1. I am glad you see a role for justice. Thank you - that's all I wanted to make sure you acknowledged.
2. I don't know what you mean by 'divine scheme' - you seem to have some extra knowledge that I don't have! I am fine with that, but you certainly know something that I do not know.
3. Of the 6 arguments I summarized yesterday - 5 were secular and 1 was non-secular. Additionally that I understand the 5 secular arguments and I do not understand the 1 non-secular argument. Just wanted to make sure that was elucidated.
4. The attached picture, is my view of our argument
In this attached picture, the left side is the secular world and the right side is the non-secular world. As you can see, the left side is pictured by a compass, where we can measure things empirically. The right side needs a special eye (metaphorically speaking). The left side seeks justice. The right side sees beyond justice.
My feet a firmly in the left hand side. You appear firmly on the right hand side.
I watched most of the links Surya had provided on the subject of 'Justice' by Prof Michael Sandel. The idea of utilitarian, libertarian and Kantian thoughts underlying the idea of justice in western democracies was very well brought out by him. Great quality stuff. Kant seems to come very close to Indian thoughts on the subject.
Surya
Thank you my friend Srini. Did you notice the number of people who have seen 'Justice' - it is closing in on 5.5 million! That is astounding, no?
For those interested, here is the link again:
Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER"
Arch
Good lecture! Philosophy and Justice are parallel tracks in my view. An act socially justifiable may not be legally right. Personally i think sacrifice of one for the survival of many may be the right thing though legally not acceptable. I do not know. may be it is. Who knows? I'm not a legal person. I wish we had Mr. Narayanasamy lecturing Engineering Economics, the way Michael Sandel does!
J.P.
veppa mara uchiyil niinu peyonnu adudhinnu vilayada pogumbodhu solli vaippanga .un veeratha muliyileya killi vaipanga..velaitra veenargalin .................
Arch
There is a reason behind that type of upbringing. Otherwise, kids would have started to doubt about the existence of God. May be that's why we were all taught that way.
J.P.
I do not agree with you in that regard.god is no way related with ghost. Who said all religion are teaching good things. There are some vested interest behind that.
Surya
To you point about suspect motivations, which swami amongst these do you like the best? Each of these is a true scenario:
1. Swami who gives up his millions to become one (written up in the NY times this weekend)
2. Swami who gives up his swami-dom to found an energy drink company and become a billionaire? (5-hour energy drink founder)
3. Swami who had no choice, and found become a swami a good career? (Institutionalist Swamis)
4. A swami who does not call himself (or herself) a swami (Mendicant_
5. A swami who does not look like a swami, but is a swami (King Janaka)
J.P.
In my view, every person is god/swamiji .
Kanchana
Very beautifully Surya had addressed....
Jp..hope you know this story of King Janaka....
King Janaka: The Milk Story
Raja Janaka was a God-Realized King. He is teaching us to have detachment in any circumstances and have a pure attention based on dharma (inner religion and moral conduct) and the Spirit.
“You know King Janaka was called ‘Vidheha’ (means also ‘dead’ or ‘eliberated from the body’). Great sage Narada asked him one day, ‘ Revered Sir, how are you called as Vidheha, you live in this world, how can you be a Vidheha?’ Raja Janaka said,’this is very simple. I will tell you about it in the evening. Now, please do this little job for me. There is milk in this bowl. You take this bowl & come along with me. Please see that not a single drop of milk is spilled on the Earth. Then only I will tell you why I am called Vidheha’. Narada took the bowl & followed Janaka everywhere. He had to be very careful because the bowl was such that by the slightest movement the milk might have spilled. He got very tired. When they returned in the evening,
Narada asked ‘Please tell me now, I am quite fed up with carrying this bowl & following you everywhere at the same time.`
Raja Janaka said, `First of all tell me what you have seen?’
Narada, `Nothing except this bowl of milk so that it won’t spill.`
Raja Janaka, “Didn’t you see, there was a big procession in my honour, then there was a court wherein, there was programme of dancing? Didn’t you see anything?
Narada said, “No sir, I have not seen anything”.
Raja Janaka, `My child, likewise with Me, I also see nothing. All the time, I just watch my attention. Where is it going? Making sure that it won’t spill away like the milk.`
“This sort of attention one has to develop: chitta nirod’. Nirod means the saving of your attention, so your attention should not be on saving money & worldly things and all that, but attention itself must be saved. As you watch your money, as you watch your road when you drive, as you watch your child, when it is growing, as you watch the beauty of your wife, or the care of your husband, all put together you watch your Self – your attention.”
Surya
Excellent Kanchana.
Also, J.P., I wonder if you would elaborate?
In particular if we take the actions of, say Jack The Ripper and then compare it to the actions of King Janaka as referred to in Kanchana's story - would you consider both the same ? And could you please elucidate why?
Am using an extreme example above to better understand your point of view.
Srini
The idea that dreaded sinners are not divine is not acceptable ! Ravana and Hiranya were considered avatars of the gate keepers of Vishnu ! And when they died they were supposed to have merged with the divine. Besides, there can be another angle (as is usual to my boring take on these) - its like in a dream. After you wake up the merit of your actions in your dream and the demerits don't count for anything ! Sorry i could not resist jumping in (unless reprimanded by the Boss, of course). Of course these are not politically correct views and cannot be defended beyond a point in a public forum!
Surya
Let me throw in a few examples - please defend.
1. Ajmal Kasab
2. Pol Pot
3. Charles Manson
One additional question: would you agree that a criminal should be punished? Why?
Srini
You are seeing the fact of our describing the sinner as also 'divine' as glorification or justification of his acts? It is neither. Ravana and Hiranya were not glorified or justified. Justice was done to them. But that does not take away the point about their being 'divine'
The desire to be free from cruelty is fulfilled only in non-dual (no one to perpetrate and to receive) and not in duality. So it is valid as an urge but invalid as an utopian concept to be achieved in this world. But still the attempt to bring the violent ones to justice is also part of the divine scheme. When I think sinless world is utopian, it does not mean that one should not constantly strive for it. One should strive for it and at times one may succeed and at times one may fail. But violence and strife for justice are both co-eval and eternal ?
Surya
1. I am glad you see a role for justice. Thank you - that's all I wanted to make sure you acknowledged.
2. I don't know what you mean by 'divine scheme' - you seem to have some extra knowledge that I don't have! I am fine with that, but you certainly know something that I do not know.
3. Of the 6 arguments I summarized yesterday - 5 were secular and 1 was non-secular. Additionally that I understand the 5 secular arguments and I do not understand the 1 non-secular argument. Just wanted to make sure that was elucidated.
4. The attached picture, is my view of our argument
In this attached picture, the left side is the secular world and the right side is the non-secular world. As you can see, the left side is pictured by a compass, where we can measure things empirically. The right side needs a special eye (metaphorically speaking). The left side seeks justice. The right side sees beyond justice.
My feet a firmly in the left hand side. You appear firmly on the right hand side.
Susee
There is one contrast between those sinners and the sinners of the present day! Those from the ancient day had some reason to perform their acts - although it was not justified, but eventually got absolved upon getting punished or by serving their dues as a result of a spell. Eventually, they become one with God - at least that's what we have been told.
For the most part, the modern day sinners are nothing short of psychopaths and have no remorse whatsoever - even at the point of meeting their end. Forgive me, Srini, I don't have the maturity to see divinity in them! Perhaps I have a long way to go in my search!
Srini
Susee, yes you are right. When you look at the nature of crimes being committed by heartless people these days, the argument that all are the same divine, does sound unconvincing.
Surya
Let's summarize and distill the various arguments, shall we?
A:
Argument A: Even sinners are divine (Srini, JP)
Counter argument A: It is difficult to imagine Pol Pot as divine (Surya)
B:
Argument B: We should impose a penalty commensurate with the offense (Surya)
Counter Argument B: But the rich and powerful get away with it (Arch)
C:
Argument C: Ashoka was very different pre- & post- Kalinga; good after the war (Suresh Babu)
Counter Argument: Ashoka was Boss (wait, that is a coincidence!!) - history is written by the victor (Surya)
-----
Personally, speaking for myself, of the 6 arguments above, I am most troubled by the first - i.e Argument A. Seems like we are hanging our hat on a intangible non-empirical, speculative point of view.
Shankar
Let’s take your Argument B – Punishment to fit the crime.
Determining the extent of the crime is very subjective. What I mean from this is, what I might consider a crime scale of say 5, you might consider a 10 or vice versa.
Some examples –
1. Financial – What if an employee fudges his/her expense report every time – but it is only say $ 100 here and $ 50 there. Is this equivalent to say another employee claiming he bought an equipment for say Rs. 10,000 and it was never there – I have had both happen to me – the value is the same but the punishment was different
2. Adultery – What if a spouse cheats one time as opposed to a spouse having a regular affair – Should the punishment be different – We have seen several times for public figures or even friends the “one time” was somehow pardoned but the regular affair was not. Also on the same breath – if a wife pardons her husband for adultery, should society also pardon him and forget (like Clinton)?
3. A few years ago I met this elderly couple that had immigrated from Pakistan – After being married for over 50 years, the wife decided to tell her husband she had aborted their first child, while they were in Pakistan. The husband hearing that after 50 years decided he cannot live with her and separated. The community was split in the punishment level for the wife. Surprisingly the men were in favor of being more tolerant to the lady.
The values and morals that are practiced and accepted are different from region to region and for the same person the values and moral standards change over the course of time. Some of us accept moral degradation as we age, because that’s what we see and while others actually become more conservative and live up to a much higher standard than what they accepted say 10 or 20 years ago.
Even the great Mahabharat differentiates the sin cast be different people and the punishment was never the same – how can you cast a mother abandoning a child and knowingly ask for his death, so she can save her other 5 children? Was the punishment there a punishment and did it fit the crime?
So how do we put a value to the sin and say which ones are pardonable and which ones are for death sentence? Obviously the courts have considered actions like murder or rape are serious sins and justified as capital punishment. Who determines if the sinner should be sent to the gas chamber? In the middle east for a rapist the punishment is clear whereas in India it is not. Why?
The word TOLERANCE was created just for us to make peace within ourselves in order to justify our actions.
Not sure if this is what you meant by me making a real world ….?!
Surya
Shankar - throughtful - gritty - unstinting. Great writeup. Thank you for taking on the secular side of these arguments so well.
You are asking the right questions about Justice. 'Idhu nyayama?'
Arch
You have raised some credible points that relate to real life situations.
Relativity _ yes. Kind of subjectivity????
Legal and social values are measured differently at different parts of the world at the same point in time. Also these are measured differently at the same place but at a varied point in time. There is another aspect which influences social values of each of these two scenarios. That aspect is the individual component or sections of the society which could be religious oriented, or cost oriented (in the case of India or some parts of India), or the economic class of the society (upper/middle/lower income groups). There could me more permutations and combinations.
Magnitude _ you explained beautifully.
One timer versus multiple timer : socially labelling may be the same. Thief is a thief either committed once or not. But the general consensus will be easily made on those repeaters rather than one timers. If you cheat a couple of dollars or a 100 dollars in an expense claim, it is cheating. How will the law approach this magnitude factor, I'm not sure. Different countries may approach differently. In Saudi Arabia if you steel either a 100 or a million dollar, I believe the punishment will be the same whereas in a civilized (again it is subjective) it could be dealt with in a different way.
Yes/no and/or gate 0/1 scenario
In your case of claiming something which never existed. It is plain and simple. It is a serious matter.
Not happened in the rounding up or not similar to $50 so called fiddling in report of expenses claim.
However, if you correlate this to the below case how will you conclude?
In an expense claim someone claims a $20 breakfast expense without actually buying the bf. Say a client or customer has bought that bf. Only difference that the countering party cannot prove with an evidence or prove for want of evidence. In your case of the machinery. It could have been proved as there was no evidence to prove it was indeed purchased.
Where does ethics fit in the context of legal systems and/or social values.
We can analyze n number scenarios with a do while end if logic but hard find a statement for 'endif'.
Pleasantly surprised by your lengthy email. Sorry that mine is an incomplete response.
Srini
Shankar, interesting thoughts!
Kanchana
Somewhere I feel a big gap in the whole discussions framing the whole concept ^divine scheme^....
the question ^ do sinners have to be punished or not, if so who will execute this and this how gets related to divine scheme
Arch
You talking about parallel tracks. Two separate aspects!
There is a third party called THE LAW this third party should take care of that. Within some so called divine thing may also exist sin!!!
Dev
Iam with Kanchana on this. There cannot be anything like punishment in the Divine scheme of things at all. Law as Arch points out is Man made and is formulated with the knowledge available at that point of time and is subject to change with time. So punishment given today can become unjustifiable tomorrow when the context changes. This is the limitation of Law that is made with limited knowledge.
The Divine scheme there cannot be anything like a punishment .
Arch
1. If there isnt anything like punishment in the Divine scheme of things, why did/would Divine/God(s) punish the evil?
2. I agree with the on the limitations of man made law. Some religious believers suggest that the initial law was given to mankind by the Divine/God(s). Can you imagine a world to function with any chaos without the man-made law?
3. Do you think 'punishment' can be replaced by the Divine 'curse'?
Srini
If some one constantly oppresses you and harasses you, would you find it as 'punishment' if the oppressor is chastised or disciplined? Protection of the helpless / victim cannot be equated with creating fear of punishment?
Surya, my understanding is like this. The desire for justice, happiness, love, unity etc are all the desire for one's own Self. But all these urges seem to have two sides in the world of manifestations. The pol potist who killed mercilessly might have had a grievance and might have looked for JUSTICE for all you know. Hitler, Napolean, Ashoka may fall under the category of people who sought the noble purpose of unification (UNITY). You cannot have one sided coins?
All the forces operating in nature seem to arise from the desire to unify with the original Sat-chit-ananda. But most often the path taken does not lead there, although those who take mistaken paths also pursue the same goals that those who take the so called righteous path may pursue. Again this is no justification nor advocacy for mistaken paths !
Surya
All the forces operating in nature seem to arise from the desire to unify with the original Sat-chit-ananda."
How do you know that?
Let's accept that is your assumption. How would you test it? How would you verify it? How would you replicate it?
In the absence of testing and verification one can make any statement they want:
For example I can say 'all this is happening because it is written in a secret book hidden in a vault in the buried city of Atlantis"
You see what I mean?
Srini
why do you think it is not replicable or repeatable? So many have tread the different paths available and attained the same results. And they tell us 'this is the path I took and result I got' It is for us to put it to practice and see if the same result materialises. But is it not true that we don't bother to put it practice because we are eternally wondering if there is anything to it at all (lack of shraddha) or are not really interested (not enough thirst for freedom or enlightenment). All I can say is that I BELIEVE that those who are panting for it like (you know the example) a man held under water (water board !!!) until he feels his heart would burst and craves for a breath of air, would get it !
OK I may not have seen Ram, Does it mean I should necessarily go with Shyam? Is life to be wasted ONLY on good food, some pleasures and toiling for family and nothing else?. Even if so, there are billions happily doing that. Should there not be a few crack pots attempting other crazy things !
Surya
Put this way, I support you experiments and efforts. You have my full backing. Let me know when you arrive, I will be the first in line to hear about your discovery!
This is what the BG says to support your efforts:
Manushyanam Sahastreshu
Kaschidyatati Siddhayee
Yatatamapi siddhanam
Kascin mam vetti tattvatah
Out of the many thousands one may endeavor for perfection, and even those that have achieved that, hardly one knows me!
There you go!!