Heh, I really don't know why you bring up the point of my being a Hindu; all I was trying to do was to engage in a conversation, and more importantly to find out how your way of thinking was different from mine that you draw different conclusions from your study than I do. That's why I asked so many questions in my first comment, and I was just a little saddened to find you less than enthusiastic, that's all. I know I can be a pest sometimes when I do that :)
To be honest I still don't understand what you are trying to say in your second paragraph; but in general you seem to be stating that there is some kind of naturalistic fallacy involved in the Hindu ethical system. I would like to tell you that that is certainly not the case and I do not know what gave you the idea. Rta is a term for the universal principle from which the moral (or Dharmic) conclusions naturally follow specific to various situations. It is natural only the sense that it is a certain statement that in any given situation certain ways of acting are better than others for the for the purpose of the welfare (spiritual as well as material) of oneself and of others - and in that respect it is the very source of morality as generally understood. For instance, that you should not cause physical harm to another, applied within context, is a moral imperative. It's not made any less moral by the "natural" - to use your term - fact that if you cause physical harm to another, you act against the spiritual as well as material interest of yourself as well as the other person .
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-12-08 04:33 pm (UTC)To be honest I still don't understand what you are trying to say in your second paragraph; but in general you seem to be stating that there is some kind of naturalistic fallacy involved in the Hindu ethical system. I would like to tell you that that is certainly not the case and I do not know what gave you the idea. Rta is a term for the universal principle from which the moral (or Dharmic) conclusions naturally follow specific to various situations. It is natural only the sense that it is a certain statement that in any given situation certain ways of acting are better than others for the for the purpose of the welfare (spiritual as well as material) of oneself and of others - and in that respect it is the very source of morality as generally understood. For instance, that you should not cause physical harm to another, applied within context, is a moral imperative. It's not made any less moral by the "natural" - to use your term - fact that if you cause physical harm to another, you act against the spiritual as well as material interest of yourself as well as the other person .