Right or Wrong is relative.
It is purely Subjective.
When a vast majority follow a certain practice and decides it to be Right it becomes right.
These value judgement are, at the Social level,are tools of Social Control.
They do not mean anything more.
However, as one has to exist in a Society , one has to follow these norms in this world.
Knowledge or Awareness is of two kinds.
One, knowledge of this world of objects and the other,
The knowledge about oneself,Reality,which is personal and can be felt
only by the individual.
Therefore the Vedas classify Knowledge into two Kinds..
One, The Absolute Knowledge, Para Vidya and
Transient Knowledge, Apara Vidya.
Transient Knowledge is transitory, subject to change, depends on our perceptions and real only in the relative sense.
To illustrate, let us take the case of one sitting in a Room and there is a Table in the other Room which he can not see.
Here, for the one he sits in a room, the table does not exist as it is not visible or seen by him.
If one were to prove its existence from one’s memory that it was there and it used to be there , this argument s fallacious as it does not depend on one’s direct experience.
But, the fact that the table exists can not denied because one has not seen it, is wrong as well
Therefore an Object exists or ‘Is’, from the standpoint of its being there, seen by some body or as an idea in one’s mind.(‘Is’-'Asti’)
It does not exist-’Nasti’, from the stand point of the one who is sitting in the other room.
There is yet another class of people who see the Table for the first time.
As they have not seen it before they can not describe it, that is the table can not be described as to what it is.
This is called ‘Avaktavyam’(Indescribable).
Now look at the three stages of the Object.
It is ’Asti’ ‘Does Exist’, from the stand point of people who see it.
It is ‘Nasti’,'Does not Exist’, from the stand point of one who does not see it.
It is ‘Avaktavyam’, ‘indescribable’, from the standpoint of those who se t for the first time.
So an Object is ‘Is,Is Not,and Indescribable ‘ at the same time, Asti,Nasti , Avaktavyam.
For the technologically inclined,
In Cricket match Live telecasts , we have many cameras covering the event.
The event looks different from each camera.
Which is the correct one representing the Object,Event?
If you have two televisions at Home in two different rooms,you will notice one frame or picture and audio comes later (or earlier than the other.
Which represents the correct Time frame?
Science will explain why it is so by talking about the velocity of light and Sound.( does sound have velocity or speed?)
But it does not explain the phenomena but describes the process for such an event.
Therefore an Object is presented to us in many ways.
This depends on our Senses, Anthakaranas,Gunas,Mind and Chitha.
This, apart from the attributes of the object
Hence in the transient World, an Object ,
Is Not, Nasti,
to different people.
Again the Object may be all of these at the same time,
That is, Is , Is Not, and Indescribable(Asti, Nasti and Avaktavyam)
An object can be predicated in Seven different ways.
2.Is Not,( Nasti)
4.Is and Is Not(Asti Nasti) , depends on the location of the Object and the Observer.
5.Is and Indescribable(Asti Avaktavyam)
6.Is Not and Indescribable (Nasti Avaktavyam)
7.Is,Is Not and Indescribable(Asti,Nasti,Avaktavyam)
This predication of Object forms the Logic of Nyaya System of Indian Philosophy, The Sapthabangi Naya
This is the most advanced system of Logic, better than Logical positivism of Bertrand Russell.
Does an Object, such being the case exist at all?
Nihilists say No.
Empiricists say Yes.
John Locke says, I Know Not’
Adi Sankaracharya says ‘It exits and at the same time does not exist”
Assume you step on some creepers in the night in a forest in and you jump out in fear, assuming it to be a snake.
When you use a Torch, you find that it to be a creeper,
Your Fear is gone.
Your fear was real,
The Creeper was real,
And that it is not a creeper is also Real
Therefore Shankaracharya says all the three statements are true,
The difference is that while experiencing Fear your Awareness,Knowledge was incorrect, because of Ignorance, not knowing all the facts.
Once you come to know all the facts you get the Knowledge,
Removal of Ignorance or Avidya, id Knowledge, Sankara avers.
This being the case of individual Objects, how can one assume the Reality of Objects and events in this world and pass moral judgement?
Any such assertion is contrary to knowledge,
Therefore Right or Wrong is only Relative and has no place in advance knowledge.
Look at this point.
In Egypt, during Cleopatra’s times’ it was the custom to marry one’s sister, brother.
Cleopatra married Ptolemy, her brother first.
Let us see how God would judge two different cases on this issue,
One who does marry one’s brother from another Moral system where marrying sister/brother is incest and morally wrong, and another Cleopatra, after their Deaths.
Would he punish Cleopatra for having married her brother(which was considered Moral by Egyptians at that time) , for incest?
Or would God punish the one , who is not an Egyptian, and who has married her brother for incest?
He can Not. for He Is God, there can be no double standards.
So at the Absolute level thee is nothing as sin or sacred.
Note;This is an advanced concept.
Let not people quote Shankaracharya and indulge in incest.
I would like to quote Rajaji,a Great Statesman and Philosopher of India.
(Rajaji was a lawyer.
Once a murderer approached Rajaji and asked him to represent him in Court.
As a matter of principle C.Rajagopalachari (Rajaji )would never appear for one whom he thought was guilty and so he refused.
The murderer told Rajaji,
‘You believe in Hinduism, Every thing is done by God, So my murder is not committed by me but by God, you should represent me’
‘You are correct.
The same God asked me not to represent you.
The same god will also ask the Judge to hang you”)
In this sense there is no Sin, says Adi Sankara in Nirvana Shatakam.
न पुण्यं न पापं न सौख्यं न दुःखं
न मन्त्रो न तीर्थो न वेदो न यज्ञ ।
अहं भोजनं नैव भोज्यं न भोक्ता
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥४॥
Na Punnyam Na Paapam Na Saukhyam Na Duhkham
Na Mantro Na Tiirtho Na Vedo Na Yajnya |
Aham Bhojanam Naiva Bhojyam Na Bhoktaa
Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||4||
4.1: Neither am I bound by Merits nor Sins, neither by Worldly Joys nor by Sorrows,
4.2: Neither am I bound by Sacred Hymns nor by Sacred Places, neither by Sacred Scriptures nor by Sacrifies,
4.3: I am Neither Enjoyment (Experience), nor an object to be Enjoyed (Experienced), nor the Enjoyer (Experiencer),
4.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.