 Hello everyone, today we are going to talk about the theory of Purusharthas or what Purusharthas, which deals with ethics in Indian philosophy. Now, if you look at the screen, Purusharthas is well written in English with the diacritical marks that you see around S and A. So, what is Purusharthas and what does it mean? Well, let us say now, coming to human existence. Now, let us go back traditionally to Indian philosophy, because we are talking about Purusharthas in ethics, because Purusharthas deal with the notion of ethics, as we understand it today in Indian philosophy. Now, what should one do or what does one want to do? Now, these are two different questions, but these are the essential crux questions of life. Now, let us take a mystical flashback to say an Indian gurukul or a place of learning of ancient India. What is it that students learnt? Like today in schools, we are learning about science, about literatures, about social history, about languages. So, what was the syllabus or what was the curriculum or what was the issues that were dealt with in ancient Indian philosophy? One of the crucial issues dealt with in far more importance than what it is dealt with today is that, what is one supposed to do? Well, on the board you find two questions right now. The first question here tells that well asks, what is one supposed to do in life? And the second question asks that well, what does one want to do in life? Now, this was a crucial component of the engagement of ancient Indian philosophy that, following the various ashrams in life, the brahmacharya ashram was spent in learning and what was it that one learnt? Well, one essential component that was to be learnt is that, what is worth doing or what is the right thing to do in life or what does one do in life? What is one supposed to do in life? Now, before we go on to that, let me briefly bring you about the difference between the two questions on the board that you see right now, that what is worth doing and what one is supposed to do? Now, what do these two questions signify? Well, when we ask that well, what is it that you want to do and what is it that you are supposed to do? Now, let us take a look at this over here, the difference between that one wants and that one to do. So, what do these two different words tend out to mean? Well, this is a crucial distinction that is to be made to understand the moral domain, that what one wants to do, if we label it as one and what one ought to do, if we label it as two. Well, say one talks about the descriptive nature of human wants, whereas two or ought talks about the prescriptive or injunctions for human action. Now, let me write this here, so that it is clear to you, this is what we talked about was want and this is what we talked about was ought. Now, the descriptive nature of human wants is well, what we want, what is it that we desire? It is only about what we desire and does that make it automatically what we should be wanting? Well, there is what is the gap, which many ethicists in the western parlance have called the naturalistic philosophy, can we infer a descriptive nature of human want to a prescriptive nature of human action. Well, from the context of Purusharthas, the answer from that can we infer one to two? Well, the answer is clearly no, that well two is a separate independent domain that is to be worked out by the theoreticians or the intelligentsia of the time. So, Purusharthas are claiming that giving us a prescriptive or an injunctive notion or for human action and they are informed by two is informed by one, but not determined by it. Now, let us try to comprehend the crucial difference between these two, what is it to be informed by it and what is it to be determined by determining human actions by description. Now, let us take a look at this, now that if we find suppose teacher has administered a project work or a test to the students, where they have to write an essay about some particular topic of their liking. Now, if the teacher finds that well, that many students or few students have actually copied from various sources or plagiarized and not put up what they wish to have not been original in their writing, then what does the teacher do. Now, we see that well, most of the people are have plagiarized and if the teacher excuses plagiarism considering that well, this is perhaps a younger lot of a class and they are doing the project for the first time and therefore, because I find a lot of them have plagiarized therefore, I will not deduct or make any punishment for plagiarism. Then, what the teacher tends to be arriving it as is arriving from a descriptive state of affairs to revising his own prescription, perhaps this would make a greater sense or a greater another example that would perhaps elaborate this even better is when we talk about say homosexuality. Now, considerably simplifying the argument to provide a good analogy for this is odd distinction that we are talking about, let me present an analogy which is perhaps too simplified to be a very accurate representation of reality, but it will nevertheless hold make the distinction clear. Now, if we find that homosexuality is prevalent in a society and we find that well that description is that there homosexuality is prevalent in society. So, if being informed by that description and it is a moral wrong in that particular society, but seeing the prevalence of homosexuality in the society, if the governance revises the moral claim or the moral vision of this moral stand on homosexuality, then we are seeing a case where description is determining prescription. So, where if you take a look at the sense that well homosexuality is prevalent, society a right say and this is a fact one homosexuality is regarded as immoral or in society a. That is one odd not to do so, this is a prescription one. So, now being informed by this fact over here, if we make a change and we find that well because homosexuality is prevalent, so we revise moral stand point to lead to making homosexuality morally acceptable in society a. Now, this is an example of where we are moving from a description to a prescription that is by finding how things are. So, we move from there to determining how things ought to be or what things seem to be. Now, being informed, so let us call this say one and this two. Now, how does one lead to two? Well this can be of two. So, one that it is determined and this is that it is informed. When I say determined, well seeing the problems of homosexuality, if the governance directly makes homosexuality morally acceptable in society a, then well it is being determined by it. Whereas, seeing homosexuality is prevalent in society a, if the governance is trying to find out that well something is prevalent, let us look at let us review our stand point. If it is prevalent, maybe why is it so or we need to revise its moral stand point that is informed. And of course, there can be a third option which is it is indifferent that well. Our rule book says so and therefore, prevalence in society does not determine whether we should even consider a moral revision on that particular matter. Now, considering a simple thing let us say that well, if I am a shopkeeper and I am talking up some toothpaste for sale. Now, if I say in one month I see that none of these toothpaste have been sold whereas, a toothpaste of another brand has been sold. Now, it is logical for me as a shopkeeper not to stock the toothpaste that does not sell and rather to stock more of the toothpaste that sells. It is a very simple business claim that well, I see the descriptive state of affairs, I see the data, I see the statistics and from there I infer that well this toothpaste that I need to stack and the toothpaste I need to get rid of. So, but in the case of values or models or policies that govern a society or even an individual it is not simply a case of a description governing prescription especially in the Indian philosophical outlook. So, if I say that well I want to be happy and lying very often gets me things in a much easier fashion and therefore, I am happy. So, lying is right well that is this kind of a jump from a description to a prescription is unacceptable in Indian philosophy. So, now coming back to what do we mean by the Purusharthas or well Purusharthas in Indian philosophy. Now, well as you can infer it is a combination of two words Purush and Purusharthas. But before we go to that well it simply means as Purusharthas literally means the end literally means the end or goal to be aimed at by people. So, considering the talk the explanation that just preceded this well we can clearly understand what Purusharth means is that it is not only what is desired or valued, but more importantly that what ought to be desired or valued. So, when I say that well when I utter Purusharthas it would mean that well what is the objective of human existence what is the aim or what are the goals of human existence. Now, that is a very broad question, but nevertheless it is a very crucial question in determining how human lives are lived in societies or in isolation. So, Purusharthas would mean that well what is the goal that is worth being aimed at well let us and well what this goal is we all want something, but what is worth wanting is what makes the sophisticated discrimination between thought through life and an unthought through life. So, when I say Purusharth when I say Purusharth I do not mean that well what human beings want, but perhaps more accurately what human beings ought to want. So, the goal of life everybody would have a goal of life or everybody would perhaps have desires, but those desires are Purusharth understood in a extremely broad sense when we talk about any object of human desire as Purusharth. But strictly speaking when we talk about Purusharth in the philosophical and moral context we talk about goals that are worth having. So, Purusharth would mean what are the goals that are worth having. Now, first clarification that I would like to make right away is that when we talk about the word Purush over here this does not mean male or it does not have to do anything with being male or about being a man. In fact, Purush here is to be understood as the soul or in a way contrasted with if the sankya philosophy is to be followed contrasted with what is known as prakriti. So, Purush is that soul or that factor that is contrasted with the rest of the world out there. So, with prakriti what we mean is that is often regarded as the original or primordial substance. This is a metaphysical classification that need not vary you now. So, Purush over here means that which is the human component in us. So, the rational soul component that is in us. So, Purusharth would actually turn out to mean that well what is the object of what or what to be the object of human desire. So, here Purush should be understood only as human and nothing to do with a gender classification. Now, there are let me give you of a brief introduction to what are the kinds of Purusharths which many of you would perhaps be aware of already if raised in the Indian milieu. The classical Purusharths that are made out is well first is in fact there is no I would not like to introduce you to a hierarchy right now. So, it is earth or material well being calm or satisfaction of desires as moral duties or duties that come to you be as being a human being or in particular position of yours in life and the final one is Moksha which is regarded as the highest Purusharth and it is what we can now understand as as liberation. Now, as you can see we can make a classification here that these are social whereas, this is intensely personal or spiritual or individualistic. In fact, very often this has been