Understanding Dussehra: The morality spectrum
One of the most ancient concepts that explain duality is the Chinese philosophy of Yin and Yang. Everything has an opposite: where there’s light, there’s shadow; for life, there’s death. These dualities aren’t necessarily in opposition but rather in harmony, feeding into and defining each other.
Ravana’s Ten Heads: Ravana, the primary antagonist of the Ramayana whose defeat is celebrated on Dussehra, had ten heads. These are often seen as symbolic of ten human flaws. The act of Lord Rama killing Ravana isn’t about annihilating evil in its entirety but rather about overcoming these flaws.
The war in Ramayana, and by extension Dussehra, can be seen as an allegory for the inner battles we all face. It’s about making choices that align more with our higher self than our base instincts. Good and evil, in many ways, are relative. What’s “good” in one culture or time period might be seen as “evil” in another. They’re constructs that help humans navigate complex social and moral landscapes. What’s deemed good or evil can be relative, varying across cultures, religions, and individual beliefs. For example, a warrior killing an enemy might be considered heroic in one culture but a grave sin in another.
While Ravana is the antagonist in the Ramayana, he’s also a complex figure. A devout Shiva worshiper, an accomplished scholar, and a powerful king, his multifaceted personality blurs the lines between good and evil, suggesting that these concepts aren’t always black and white. After Ravana’s defeat, Sita undergoes a trial by fire to prove her purity. This episode raises questions about societal judgments, honor, and the complexities of righteousness.
Good Within Evil: Often, acts categorized as “evil” might have underlying “good” intentions or vice versa. A person may commit a crime to feed their starving family—how do we reconcile the act’s morality? The very existence of “good” necessitates “evil.” Without shadows, there’s no appreciation of light. This balance is essential for growth, evolution, and understanding. The cyclical celebration of Dussehra may symbolize the perpetual battle between our higher aspirations and our baser instincts, emphasizing the ongoing nature of personal evolution. By celebrating the triumph of good over evil, we’re also acknowledging the existence and importance of the dark side. It’s a recognition that the path to wisdom and righteousness involves confronting and understanding our own inner demons.
In today’s world, where moral lines often blur, the external representation of Dussehra’s battle might symbolize the internal conflicts we face in determining what’s right, navigating societal expectations, and personal desires. Ravana’s downfall began with his attachment and desire for Sita. This can serve as a reflection on how attachments can lead to one’s undoing, emphasizing the importance of detachment and self-awareness.
While the core message of Dussehra remains consistent, its interpretation and celebration can vary. In some parts, it’s about Rama’s victory over Ravana, while in others, it’s Goddess Durga’s triumph over the buffalo demon Mahishasura. This variance underlines how societies adapt stories to reflect their values and lessons they find most pertinent.
Annually commemorating the triumph of good over evil serves as a reminder for individuals to assess their moral compass, encouraging them to uphold righteousness in the face of wrongdoing. With changing times, the interpretations of ancient tales also evolve. For the newer generation, Ravana might not just symbolize a demonic force but could represent systemic societal issues like corruption, prejudice, or environmental neglect. The battle is then between collective societal good and these modern ‘evils’. In an era of individualism, many use Dussehra as a time of personal reflection, confronting their own Ravanas, be it anger, jealousy, greed, or other personal challenges.
Perceptions – Consensus Subjectivity vs. Objective Truth
Perception is the process by which sensory information is interpreted, organized, and consciously experienced. This involves not just the mechanical aspects of sensation, but also the psychological elements that interpret and prioritize this data, often filtered through individual beliefs, experiences, and cultural norms. Perception is an interface between an individual’s interior world and the objective reality surrounding them.
In a perfect, objective world, there would be a single, indisputable truth about everything. But humans aren’t perfectly objective beings; our cognitive and sensory apparatus has its limitations. A snake perceives heat differently than a human; a dog perceives scent differently than a human. While the world itself might possess a “universal truth,” our ability to perceive it is shaped by our limitations. If you act with “100% completeness,” it would mean that you have acted in full alignment with your capabilities and intentions. But people perceive your actions based on their own sets of experiences, expectations, and biases, not necessarily based on your intentions. Hence, perceptions can vary even for a universally “complete” action. While the act itself might be independent, its interpretation is not. That’s where perception comes in. Perceptions may be “limited” and “formed by other or for other,” but they play a critical role in social dynamics, ethical considerations, and interpersonal relations.
People rely on perceptions because it’s an accessible way to interpret and navigate the complex world. But it is essential to differentiate between individual perceptions and collective or societal ones. The latter often serves as a “consensus reality,” providing a common framework for communication and understanding. So, while perceptions are limited by their very nature, they are a necessary component of human interaction and society. The real issue arises when perceptions are mistaken for objective truth, ignoring their inherently subjective and conditional nature. We can indeed question the “reality” of different perceptions and argue that they’re all illusory in some way, but as long as humans have subjective experiences, perceptions will continue to differ. And in that diversity of perception lies the complexity, and beauty, of human experience.
Question: can we have any objective experience?
The notion of “objective experience” is a bit of an oxymoron. Experiences are inherently subjective because they are mediated by individual sensory apparatus, psychological states, and sociocultural backgrounds. However, certain frameworks try to minimize subjectivity to get as close to “objectivity” as possible. In the scientific method, for example, experiments are designed to be replicable regardless of who performs them. The idea is to eliminate as much human subjectivity as possible so that the results point to some “objective” truth about the world.
There can be cracks in achieving objectivity in scoring or mathematical experiments as Measurement tools are designed and interpreted by humans, who bring their own sets of assumptions and limitations to the table.
When a majority of individuals agree on a particular experience or observation, this doesn’t necessarily make it “objective” in the sense of an unchanging truth that exists independent of human perception. Rather, it forms a “consensus reality”—a shared framework of understanding that facilitates communal living and communication. While this consensus reality may be treated as “objective” within a specific cultural or social context, it’s not the same as a universal truth that holds across all times and places.
For example, money is a societal consensus. We agree to give paper and metal tokens a certain value. Within the context of a particular economy, the value of a dollar or euro is an “objective” fact, but this objectivity is contingent on shared belief and participation in economic systems. The material paper has no intrinsic value; its worth is entirely constructed and agreed upon.
However, Truth, in its purest form, shouldn’t have different meanings or interpretations. In philosophy, something that is “objectively true” would be true regardless of individual or cultural beliefs—a universal fact. However, accessing or understanding such truths is a challenging endeavor precisely because we are subjective beings.
Abhishek Fanse 