Thread by @shrikanth_krish

In most political debates, the question that repeatedly arises is -

a) Should "change" be driven merely by the plausibility of an abstract principle? Regardless of how radical the principle might be?

b) Should "change" defer to the customs and traditions of the day?

(Contd..)

There is a case to be made for both a and b

In 19th c. US, an abolitionist movement picked up based on an abstract principle in the "Declaration" that "all men are created equal" - a principle that overrode the complexities of reality. Idealism trumped short-term pragmatism

There are also instances where "change" driven by abstractions has caused havoc because it did not factor in human nature and the messiness on the ground. Communism and the Bolshevik Revolution is a very fine example of "idealism" gone horribly wrong.

But is there a way to blend a. and b?

Is there a way to envision a future based on the application of abstract reason, while at the same time deferring to communal wisdom and traditions which have withstood the ravages of history and time?

An example of such a blend is illustrated in the Indian tradition in Purva Mimamsa Sutras - a text that grapples with the interpretation of the Karmakaand (ritual) portion of the Vedas

Let's examine a classic example from Mimamsa Sutras to understand how A and B can be blended

So this example grapples with a particular Vedic injunction from the ritual portion of the Vedas. The injunction reads -

"Kapilanjalaanalabheta"

It means "One should offer Kapilanjala birds (plural) as part of the Vedic sacrifice"

So this injunction in the Karmakaand was obviously composed at a very early date in Indian history when animal sacrifice was very much a part of the Vedic religion. (Pre 800BCE by all accounts)

But there was a reaction against animal sacrifice as centuries passed which led to a certain revulsion against the orthodox Vedic sacrificial religion

The Sramana movements as represented by Buddhism/Jainism also contributed to this reaction though they were not the cause of it

By the time we reach 300-200 BCE or so, clearly animal sacrifice was not particularly fashionable. It was also a time when vegetarianism emerged as a mass ideal in Indian society

So now the question is how do the Mimamsa Sutras (composed in this period of tumult circa 300-200 BCE) deal with this Vedic Adhikarana?

Do we offer Kapilanjala birds in the sacrifice? And if yes, how many?

Now let's note that that the Vedic injunction we quoted does not specify the number of birds to be offered in the sacrifice? Should it be 2, 3, 10, 20, 100, 1000, 10000?

What's the right number?

Now what we do know is that the injunction uses the "plural" form for the Kapilanjala birds.

This means the # birds to be sacrificed in the Yajna is at least 3 if not more.

(Note : In Sanskrit, plural form is used for 3 and above and not 2+ as in English).

So now we know the number of birds to be offered is at-least 3. But what should be the right number?

A prima-facie view is - it can be anything. 3 or 30 or 3000.

But this view is wrong. As we shall see.

The author of the Sutras cites another Vedic injunction which says -

"Maa Himsyaat Sarvaa Bhutaani"

Translation : One should never trouble or afflict any being whatsoever"

So one can think of this injunction as a general principle declaring Ahimsa (non violence) as the general norm to be adhered to.

But then we have the more specific injunction of the same Vedic texts instructing us to offer the birds in sacrifice.

Now what do we do?

Now if you are a "liberal" who derides tradition and elevates reason to a high pedestal, you would say -

"Chuck the sacrificial injunction. It makes no sense to me. One must not harm birds. No violence please. Chuck the sacrifice"

However a thoughtful conservative would acknowledge the "general" principle,while trying his best to accommodate the more "specific" injunction

Given that the former is asking him to minimize violence, he would restrict his sacrificial offering to exactly 3 birds and no more.

By restricting the sacrifice to 3, he is fulfilling the specific injunction, while at the same time adhering to the "general" principle to the extent he can.

While this may not have been ideal to the "liberals" of 300BCE, it was probably a prudent choice to avoid a head-on conflict with the traditionalists, while at the same time acknowledging the change in the ethical climate.

Ofc India moved away almost entirely from animal sacrifice to more benign oblations in later centuries

But the change probably occurred in a piecemeal way.

Not by a slavish adherence to an abstract doctrine (Ahimsa in this case), but by reconciling an "abstract" thought with the demands of tradition and in the process changing the tradition to suit the times.

This is a classic example of how one can drive "social change" not by frontally attacking tradition, but by actually leveraging tradition itself to back the claims of reason

There is much to learn here for both liberals and conservatives on how we can frame debates in our politically polarised times