Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c8.s6: I—Theories of the Moral Standard

A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c8.s6

Language
English

I—Theories of the Moral Standard

c8.s6.1

3. Coming to the consideration of the theories of the moral standard as advanced in the Upanishads, we have to note at the outset, that, as in the childhood of man, so in the childhood of the race, heteronomy is the first principle which serves to dictate rules for moral conduct. Reference is always made in such cases to the conduct of others, of those who are better situated morally than ourselves as dictating to us the principle of conduct for our own behoof. Not without reason did Aristotle think that the opinion of men of trained character should count as the principle of moral authority in cases when one is not able, on account of one’s ignorance, to choose the way of moral action for oneself. ¹The Taittirīyopanishad contains a celebrated passage, where the disciple is told that “ he should follow only the good actions of the spiritual teacher ; that he might even more profitably follow the good actions of those who are still better situated than the spiritual teacher ; that if ever he should seek to find out the intimate nature of duty or conduct, then he should always be guided by this one principle only, namely, how the Brahmins, who are cautious, gentle, and intent upon the law, conduct themselves in that particular case ” (S. 1). This quotation evidently implies the maxim that we should always mould our conduct on the pattern of the conduct of those who are better than ourselves and are in a position to give us rules of conduct by their example. The opinion of Society in general, or the opinion of the State, are rather vague terms for defining the nature of heteronomic duty. It may not be possible for either the Society or the State to always impart to us one uniform principle of moral conduct. On the other hand, if we penetrate deeper, we shall find that the opinions of the Society or the State are themselves based upon the maxims of conduct which are supplied to them by Wise Men. There is an oligarchy in Morality, as there is an oligarchy in the Society or the State, and it is the voice of the Moral Oligarchy which, according to the Taittirīyopanishad, ought to prevail in supplying us with the pattern of conduct.

c8.s6.2

¹ Nicomachean Ethics I. 4.

c8.s6.3

4. Theonomy is also a sort of heteronomy, inasmuch as the “ theos ” is also a “ heteros ” from the properly moral point of view. But it is convenient to consider Theonomy as separate from Heteronomy, inasmuch as the Law of God stands in a somewhat different category from the Law of Man. Unless it were possible to be a true anti-hedonist as he is, to insist on moral conduct, unless it were possible to go so much as to note what principles in general can be regarded as constituting the wishes of God—if we were not to understand these as identical with the dictates of Conscience which is the candle of the Lord within us—it might not seem very possible to set down in detail the Laws of God as enjoining the performance of certain duties upon us, in preference to, or in cancelment of, other duties. But in communities which entertain a vague fear about God as a Being who is separate from ourselves, the laws which are after all "attributed" to God by man ever hang like the sword of Damocles on the moral agent, and theophobia instead of theopathy supplies the rules for moral life. It was thus that the sage of the Kaṭhopanishad said that "God is that great fearful Thunderbolt which is raised over our head, by knowing which alone can man become immortal. For is it not through His fear, that the fire burns, the sun shines, the god of gods, the wind, and death as the fifth, run about doing their work?" Of the same import is the passage from the Taittirīyopanishad which only reiterates the passage from the Kaṭha with slight alterations (S. 2). But when all has been said in favour of the Law of God, on a careful consideration of the intimate nature of moral action, it may become evident that the law issuing from anybody except one's own Self can never be regarded as a sufficient guarantee for the moral tone of actions.

c8.s6.4

5. It is thus that moralists have arrived at the conception of autonomy which alone supplies the true principle of moral conduct. It is neither the Society, nor the Autonomy.

c8.s6.5

nor God, who can give us the essential rule for conduct. This must spring entirely from within ourselves. We cannot say that the Upanishadic seers envisaged this principle of moral autonomy unless of course we see it in that quotation from the Chhāndogya Upanishad where we are told that the mind should be meditated upon as the Ultimate Reality (S. 3. a), or even again in that other quotation from the same Upanishad where we are asked to regard the mind as verily the Ātman in us, as also the Ultimate Reality (S. 3. b). These passages have been understood by a recent writer on Hindu Ethics as involving the theory of Intuitionism. But it may be easily seen that inasmuch as it is the Mind which is here equated with the Highest Reality and not the Self which is mentioned as apart from it, we can only understand the passage as involving a lower intuitionism instead of the higher intuitionism of autonomy. Instances are not wanting even in the history of European Morals where aesthetic or sympathetic intuitionism prepares the way for the higher intuitionism of autonomy. It was not till the days of the Bhagavadgītā in the history of Hindu Ethics that the real nature of autonomy was clearly appreciated, and the categorical imperative of duty with all its Kantian purism severely inculcated. We have thus to regard the Upanishadic Ethics as on the whole deficient in the principle of autonomy as supplying the rules for moral conduct.

Linked texts (4)