<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>elisa freschiThinking about rights in Sanskrit philosophy &#8211; elisa freschi</title>
	<atom:link href="https://elisafreschi.com/2023/11/24/thinking-about-rights-in-sanskrit-philosophy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://elisafreschi.com</link>
	<description>These pages are a sort of virtual desktop of Elisa Freschi. You can find here my cv and some random thoughts on Sanskrit (and) Philosophy. All criticism welcome! Contributions are also welcome!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 19:06:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>Thinking about rights in Sanskrit philosophy</title>
		<link>https://elisafreschi.com/2023/11/24/thinking-about-rights-in-sanskrit-philosophy/</link>
		<comments>https://elisafreschi.com/2023/11/24/thinking-about-rights-in-sanskrit-philosophy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2023 23:56:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>elisa freschi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[deontic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mīmāṃsā]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[adhikāra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rāmānuja]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://elisafreschi.com/?p=3761</guid>

				<description><![CDATA[I started thinking about rights while working on permissions, because some deontic logicians think that permissions need to be also independent of prohibitions, in order to ground rights. Now, as I argued elsewhere, Mīmāṃsā permissions are always exceptions to previous negative obligations or prohibitions, so what happens to rights? There is not a directly correspondent [&#8230;]]]></description>
					<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>I started thinking about rights while working on permissions, because some deontic logicians think that permissions need to be also independent of prohibitions, in order to ground rights. Now, as I argued elsewhere, Mīmāṃsā permissions are always exceptions to previous negative obligations or prohibitions, so what happens to rights? </p>



<p><br>There is not a directly correspondent concept (how could there be one, given how historically loaded &#8216;right&#8217; is?), but an interesting parallel is <em>adhikāra</em>. How does this work?</p>



<p><br>Let me look, to begin with, at the discussion in the <em>apaśūdrādhikaraṇa</em> by Rāmānuja. There, he explains that śūdras (humans belonging to the lowest class) do not have the adhikāra to perform worship (<em>upāsana</em>), because they are unable (<em>asamartha</em>), even though they desire the result of the action. Why are they unable? Because the do not have the <em>adhikāra</em> to perform a part of it, namely <em>vedādhyayana</em>.</p>



<p><br>So, as a preliminary understanding:<br></p>



<p><em>adhikāra</em> to do x (e.g., <em>upāsana</em>) presupposes:</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list"><li>desire to obtain the result of action x</li><li>ability to perform action x, which, in turn, presupposes the ability to perform each of its parts</li><li>[not yet determined, but see below]</li></ol>



<p>The interesting part is that according to &#8220;as much as possible&#8221; principle, one does not need to perform each part of x in order to perform x, if x is a compulsory action (e.g., if you have the duty to each single day, you might leave out polishing each slide every single time). However, you still need to be &#8220;able&#8221; (<em>samartha</em>) to perform each part, even the ones you might have left out. </p>



<p><em>asāmarthya</em> &#8216;inability&#8217; can be due to physical or economical inability, but could also be the result of the lack of a predecing <em>adhikāra</em>. Thus, <em>adhikāra</em> has a double relation to <em>sāmarthya</em>: a) Lack of <em>sāmarthya</em> precludes the possibility <em>adhikāra</em> (<em>adhikāra</em> presupposes can); b) Lack of <em>adhikāra</em> to do x means that one will not get to do x and will therefore be <em>asamartha</em> with regard to y, if x is a part of y.</p>



<p>This leads to the <em>adhikāra</em> for <em>vedādhyayana</em>. This presupposes:</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list"><li>desire to obtain the result of the action</li><li>ability to perform the action (see PMS, book 6.1 on animals not being able to perform sacrifices)</li><li>sanction by an authoritative text</li></ol>



<p>Which kind of sanction? In the case of <em>vedādhyayana</em>, it seems to be a positive obligation (or <em>vidhi</em>). What would be the distinction between <em>adhikāra</em> and any other enjoined action, then? That the <em>vidhi</em> which lies at the basis of <em>adhikāra</em> establishes one&#8217;s general <em>entitlement</em> to do x, and not just one&#8217;s duty to perform x in a given case. </p>



<p> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			

		<wfw:commentRss>https://elisafreschi.com/2023/11/24/thinking-about-rights-in-sanskrit-philosophy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
				<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">3761</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>