It has been noted that unlike the Greek culture which spearheaded thinking about the domain of ethics, there is an absence of terminology in India which is meant to encourage reflection on ethics. This has raised the question: How is it possible to reflect on and reason about the domain of ethics when there is an absence of words to talk to about the domain? I would like to argue that words like bhakti, atman, brahman, moksha and attendant cluster of concepts, often thought to belong to the realm of religion, should be placed in the domain of ethics. However, it must be noted that these words belong more to the realm of practice rather than reasoning (though it does not exclude reasoning either). How then do we understand bhakti, Karma and similar cluster of concepts as belonging to the domain of ethics?
We have often seen the human need for a religion as a primary need and ethics (to be understood as a reflection on how to act or live in the world/how to lead a good life) as deriving out of one’s religion. In short, ethics has been seen as a component or an offshoot of religion. However, this is only one way to approach our engagement with the world (largely a Western approach resulting in normative ethics). I would like to contend that the relationship is actually in reverse. Ethics, I would like to argue, is a more fundamental category than religion and it is the latter that arose out of the former. Out of our need to lead an ethical life and make sense of our relationship with the cosmos, nature and the different living beings that exist, one culture engages with the world through religion and derives its morality from religion while another culture engages with the world through ritual.1 In either case the domain of ethics has to be logically and temporally prior to religion/ritual. Bhakti and the cluster of concepts, I submit, belong to the domain of ethics, engaging with the concern of how to live well. It belongs more to the realm of action or practical philosophy involving a certain form of cultivation of the body and mind.
This does not mean that those following the path of bhakti led an ascetic life or were immersed in their devotion, devoid of all worldly concerns. On the contrary, in pre-colonial Indian, we find that some of the greatest bhaktas lead an active life in politics and were engaged in various kinds of endeavours within the society. One of Chaitanya’s disciples, Rupa Gosvami, was known for recasting various types of knowledge (including ganitha and vyakarana) from the perspective of bhakti and for elaborating the idea of bhakti rasa. He played an active part in the royal court, wrote treatises on the subject, was involved in social activities and in the building of temples. Thus, we find that the Bhakti tradition has an intellectual dimension as well, challenging our current day assumptions of bhakti as anti-intellectual.
[1] See Staal 1996; Balagangadhara 1994 for the distinction between Religion and Ritual and its relation to cultures.
Bibliography
Balagangadhara S. N. 1994. The Heathen in His Blindness: Asia, the West, and the Dynamic of Religion. Studies in the History of Relisions, Vol. 64. Leiden; New York, NY: E. J. Brill
Staal, Frits. 1996. Rituals and Mantras: Rules without Meaning. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.