Orient and Occident - I

Skanda Veera

In the recent years we (many people I came across) have been looking for a work that brings about the foundational differences in the societies of East and West, their knowledge, culture and philosophies. At the most fundamental level, namely worldview and framework, seers like Sri Aurobindo had articulated the differences as they saw – quite accurate, but not quite their main line of work. Hence these thoughts are found in precise statements as part of their other major works. In the next era, ideologues like Sitaram Goel and Ram Swarup had done monumental work, but primarily contrasting the religious philosophies of East against the Abrahamic religious philosophies. As expected, the next era (present one) of literature should be bringing more foundational work, namely contrasting the societies and civilizations that give rise to these worldviews, their predicaments in those religious, economic, political and spiritual philosophies. The west had invested more than a century of research to understand the East and its ways, and hence it could comprehensively establish control on the usually tolerant Eastern societies. They had carefully worked out what modes of overt and disguised western machinery and propaganda works in what ways, to perpetuate their control of the East. On the contrary the largely colonized East has only the information that is being presented to it and comes to it through the propaganda machinery – the publications, the news, the idiom. Those ideas and institutions are embraced by the west-educated Asians not because today’s western institutions are ideally suited to human societies, but because those happen to be pushed as part of this propaganda as “fair” institutions as opposed to the “discriminative” and “unequal” institutions of the east. Religion is but one, though very powerful, part of that agenda. It had become a sort of compulsion for the Eastern societies to “choose” those institutions for their societies by a systematic controlling of literature critical of those institutions. Today’s occidental institutions like democracy, secularism, communism etc have not exactly done to the East what they did to the West. Reasons have to do partly with the timely social necessity of those institutions in the west, partly with the compatibility of those ideas with those societies. Still, they enjoy the status of being the most modern and evolved institutions. In the past two decades, primarily owing to the increasing first hand exposure to occidental societies in the educated Indians, we have just begun seeing through the essentials of the occidental institutions. Although they happen to be already part of India’s polity and society, they came to enforcement as ideals of modern society that India should emulate, rather than as a natural evolution or best solution to the current

social circumstance. Having freed themselves at least in political and military terms, now the oriental societies can and must afford to reverse the gaze, to understand the roots of the western institutions, to understand what they really have to offer to the Eastern civilizations, and suit themselves. A good attempt in this direction today is Rajiv Malhotra’s Being Different. It draws a fine contrast between the oriental and occidental religious philosophies, but not quite the foundational worldviews. The worldviews of east and west, which are two fountainheads from where the varied ideologies and institutions of occident and orient sprout, need to be understood. And this needs to be understood beyond the scope of religious philosophies. That is because although the religious philosophies also emerge from the same, a large sphere of the world’s activity is consciously moving away from religious/theological connotations. And this sphere is nevertheless influenced by the foundational worldviews of the occident and the orient, and hence will continue to influence the lives of both societies. While several countries in the east gave up to Islam, India is probably the most affected in the remainder of Asia, which in the recent centuries imported several occidental institutions and concepts willingly or unwillingly – secularism, democracy, affirmative action, communism, feudal system etc. There are other countries too that are affected – for instance communism and atheism made a major impact in China, Mongolia etc. The purpose of this write-up is however not a criticism of occidental institutions. Every institution/concept has its due contribution and relevance, limited in time and space. Communism, atheism, secularism each has its definite relevance and solution to one or more problems in the society. However none of these contributes to a comprehensive social or political design. They fit into a timely need in a specific phase of social evolution, and are compatible to a particular social design. For instance communism had no case in India at the social level until feudal setup was entrenched. But it became a necessity at one point, and is no more so. However its ill-effects in India had been much bigger than mere side-effects – the biggest being a perversion of public discourse, monopoly of academia and consistent anti-national and anti-Hindu material being churned out with the official stamp of educational and research institutions. Secularism and democracy had similarly not been very beneficial to India, and been used so far mostly to the disadvantage of Hindu society. However in the west all the three ideas had a definitely better purpose served, especially in terms of marginalizing the dogma of Church. This can be argued from both sides, and one argument is that may be the Indians are not yet ready for these lofty ideas. And that would be valid, if the traditional Indian institutions have no hope of surviving or if they are not inherently capable of solving the problems that these concepts address.

But even a casual observation of Hindu kingdoms shows that secularism is not really something that Indian society ever needs – Hindu ruler ship did much better in terms of religious tolerance and religion-agnostic state organization than today’s secular state. Neither is atheism necessary as an idea – for Hindu society never embraced theocracies. Similarly leftist correction never becomes a necessity in Hindu society because it is not a right-only thought system in the first place. Left and right functions, the ones of discrimination and synthesis (famously called vimarsa and prakasa in Saiva Agamas), always found the right balance in Hindu thought and hence social organization. Whether one says the society is not “prepared” for these ideas or whether the society did not need these ideas, the ill-effects are being borne by the society. The cycle of importing occidental ideas is not quite over - it is a continuing trend in India. Hence it becomes a necessity to understand each of these ideas and institutions in the setup and times they originated in, and their relevance to the western and Indian societies to be able to objectively own or disown these ideas or adopt them with due deliberation and tailoring.

Orient and Occident - II

Truth and World

Most of the manifest aspects of a society descend from how it looks at truth and universe, its worldview. Thus understanding how the Indic and occidental worldviews see truth and its relevance to life is essential to understand where most of their other differences come from. In Indic thought, truth is existential (the reality of existence) and existence is two-fold – essential and phenomenal/manifest, absolute and relative, what exists and how it is related to the world. Thus the knowledge of truth is two-fold, and the pursuit of these two forms is called para and apara – the other and the non-other from the perspective of the knower. Apara is the facet of truth faced towards the knower, and para is the facet that is absolute and faced away from knower or towards the object whose truth is sought. The knower-known-knowing are distinct in the apara realm, where all the knowledge of phenomenal world is. Bifurcation of truth in Indian knowledge is horizontal – it separates the frames of reality. And the various aspects of consciousness or reality in either frame are seen as complementary aspects that merge into a single continuum at the higher frame. Thus the transcendental reality in the backdrop rules out conflict of apparently contradicting aspects in the frame of phenomenal reality. In western knowledge, bifurcation of truth is vertical, into what is included and what is excluded from the scope of any aspect.

Implications – Institutions

Since the bifurcation of reality in Hindu knowledge system is horizontal, the opposing tendencies in human consciousness are sought to be reconciled by the social institutions. In contrast the implication of occidental approach to bifurcate truth vertically results in a bifurcation of human society as insider and outsider. The dichotomy of tendencies in human consciousness reflects as opposing forces in the occidental institutions. For instance communism divides society into two groups with conflicting interests. Abrahamic religions divide society into believers and non-believers. Atheism divides the society into the same categories. Capitalism pretends not to, but actually does divide society into market and marketers. Secularism as a state policy happens to protect well organized religions, but not really traditions that are loosely defined, organized.

Left and Right Left and Right, the two sides of consciousness representing synthesis and discrimination, are found as two opposing tendencies in the west – resulting in opposing groups in polity and as sustaining mutually conflicting institutions in the society – religion and anti-religion. In India left and right never were conflicting thoughts – synthesis and discrimination are seen as complementary and are seen as the complementary and inseparable principles underlying creation called Prakasa and Vimarsa. Every institution religious or political, had well defined functions for both these principles. Thus left-right divide in the Indian context was meaningless. The English educated people in India floated this left and anti-left bunkum in the image of the western societies they knew, which is entirely irrelevant in India and has only harmed the vision and policy making with unnecessary terminology and reductionism. This had them attempt to solve problems that did not exist in the Hindu society, and actually end up create problems and dividing wedge between otherwise harmonious elements of the society. Religion and Irreligion Theism and Atheism similarly have no real significance in the Hindu knowledge system. Each tradition contributes to and pursues several subjects some of which are theistic and some non-theistic. For instance the Mimamsa on one side involves rigorous analysis, epistemology, and universal principle of action and on the other side works with polytheistic ritual system. Nyaya system on one hand works with logic, argumentation, subject and object of reality and on the other hand proposes a causal principle Isvara. Thus the Hindu knowledge traditions do not believe in this bifurcation that west so vehemently engages in. There are definitely categories such as Isvara and Nireeswara, Astika and Nastika that have very specific meanings. But none of these goes into the lines of such vertical bifurcation as is seen in the canonical darsanas. Three out of six darsanas are Nireeswara (Mimamsa, Vaiseshika and Sankhya). While the six darsanas are Astika, there are Nastika darsanas like Bauddha and Jaina which are not really nireeswara intoto. Thus what we find in the traditional Indian knowledge system is a well-organized matrix of ideas and not a bifurcation of schools on any single basis. And hence the traditions that sustain the pursuit of this knowledge system are also not really two-fold but manifold. The religious practices are limited to within traditions, with life outside these traditions belonging to a common substratum of non-theistic but righteousness-based principle – Dharma. In contrast the occidental knowledge has a very strict line between religion and science, between theism and atheistic/rational thought. They create their own institutions of knowledge, which constantly compete for space in social life.

The words secular and communal have no relevance in Hindu society since the state remained agnostic to religion by policy and based itself in the dynamic principle of morality which applies to every person. None of the ideas really divide people or society as included or excluded. In the occidental thought there is need for an active state intervention to protect religion from atheistic tendencies and vice versa.

Orient and Occident – III Structure - Knowledge

It is easy to notice most of the defining differences between orient and occident. The religions of orient are rooted not in faith but in well evolved spiritual philosophies, unlike the Abrahamic religions that are rooted in faith. Experience of truth and happiness become primary in the former for this reason. There has been a long standing conflict between the institutions of religion and science in the west while both these evolved hand in hand with a common philosophical backdrop in the orient. However what is not so apparent is the reason for this. The reason why it is possible in our society to develop several facets of life hand in hand with not only no conflict but with a common metaphysical/philosophical backdrop is a structure, a system. There is a common structure of knowledge and society in the east that reconciles and develops the several aspects of life and different forms of knowledge. In contrast the different facets of life develop from different institutions in the west. Knowledge Truth is two-fold (absolute and phenomenal) and knowledge is of two-forms (para and apara) in the Hindu knowledge system. Besides there is a common set of subjects that aid the development of knowledge –

1. Pramana sastra or epistemology, which lays down the means to acquire and validate knowledge

2. Vada or argumentation 3. Bodhana sastra or pedagogy

These subjects are orthogonal to the actual knowledge, and every area of knowledge lays down its accepted modes of explanation and valid pramanas. All argumentation, deduction and refutation happen on the bases of these. These subjects also evolved with time, contributing to growing precision in the methods of analysis, explanation and argumentation. While most subjects had general acceptance and were part of the bigger scheme of Hindu knowledge, the knowledge developed and was sustained as part of sampradayas or traditions. The literature of each tradition is also arranged in a scheme common to the traditions. The traditional knowledge is categorized into multiple categories, broadly two. First is the axiomatic knowledge which is called revealed/discovered or sruti portion (ex. Veda and Sruti portion of Agamas). This is “knowable” but not falsifiable – hence one has the choice to either accept or reject it but not refute it. In the para vidyas this is usually a

larger body and in apara vidyas it is minimal. There is limited addition that happens to this part. Rest of the knowledge is either independently deducible or from the above. It is falsifiable, hence evolves over time with deprecations, modifications or additions. This kind of knowledge has further divisions – the portion which is deductive, that which is experiential, that which is known from experts etc. Any area of knowledge or text spells out its category, its valid means of validating knowledge, its scope of falsification etc., and hence its place in the bigger scheme of knowledge and where it stands with respect to others can easily be understood. Thus the entire knowledge system is a syncretic scheme, and there is no strict differentiation between different forms of it as philosophy, religion, art or science. The texts that come under these categories exist separately, and subscribe to different sets of pramanas and modes of explanations, but they all fall under a common umbrella of the larger scheme. Thus knowledge system can be seen as an inverted tree structure with the axiomatic portions at the top, the general principles next, then more specific subjects etc. The statements at the root happen to be less refutable, those at the leaves happen to be more disputable and hence modifiable. The seed thoughts/principles of more specific subjects could be seen in the texts that are closer to the root. For instance Siksha is a limb of the Veda that deals with phonetics. One of the Siksha texts Naradiya happens to lay down the basic swaras of traditional music, from which an entire branch of knowledge forks out. Thus this knowledge tree grows, with seed-thoughts getting appended at the root levels and more specific, elaborate detail getting added at the lower levels. In short the closer you are to the root, the more general the truth is, and the more specialized it is lower down. An important point we must note is that this tree is not a chronological development – for instance Naradiya does not need to be older than the origins of music. In the process of discovery the general principle comes later than the specific observations, but the general still becomes the root from which conceptually the specific derives, and hence some of the modifications to the parent/root concepts can well be chronologically later than some of the specific additions lower down in the tree. It is the nature of a statement that determines to which category of knowledge it belongs and in which text it gets appended, and not its chronological evolution. This perspective is important even when we evaluate statements like “Sanskrit is the mother of all languages”. There are several implications of this structure –

1. The different forms of knowledge – art, religion, sciences, philosophy, socio-political all aim at the same goal of truth/beauty. There is no dichotomy between

truth and beauty; they are seen as two sides of the same coin – the divine or transcendental principle. Thus the terminology used in all these forms of knowledge is not the same, but derives from a common philosophical background. The Deva of religion, the Rasa of art, the Brahman of philosophy, the Vijnana/knowledge principle of sciences and Dharma of social life all represent the same transcendental Truth in different forms and at different levels – to be only experienced and realized in different ways.

2. The same transcendental principle descends further as an “existent-invaluable” in the different forms of knowledge. Examples - zero of mathematics, prana of medicine. This principle makes a significant difference to the philosophy of pursuit of these subjects, and its effect is not limited to ideas like zero or prana.

3. The knowledge system neither remains academic nor merely a tool for enhancing human comfort or productivity, but keeps the same goals of human life (of ultimate happiness or experience of truth-beauty). This is how this scheme directly relates to the life and social-scheme.

4. Apparently contradictory aspects of truth are found to be reconciled at a higher level of generalization. Thus a common metaphysical backdrop can make conflicting aspects complementary.

5. The knowledge corresponding to all aspects of life, social or individual or cosmic is part of the same scheme. Different aspects of life such as society, religion, statecraft all exist in different spheres of life, but still are reconciled under a single grand scheme.

6. Diversity of approaches to same subject exists – they all share the same bases but coexist as parallel branches of knowledge.

Structure - Society The structure of Hindu knowledge/literature is one of the major reasons, in my view the primary reason behind the structure of Hindu society. It positively affected the social structure in several ways. The society also sustained through several institutions which are interrelated but well defined in their scope, each of them deriving its scope from a root principle – Dharma or righteous natural order. The institutions form a syncretic scheme that sustains the society, and not mutually conflicting ideas. The primary dichotomy is well explained through a series of principles. The society itself is seen as a dichotomy of two sets of institutions, those of the state and those of the nation – the rajya and rashtra. The individual and collective principles are well delineated through the principles of vyashti and samishti. The micro and macro are delineated through the principles of pinda and brahmanda. This line of differentiation is the reason why most of the occidental duals like secular-religious, left-right, knowledge-dogma etc. are irrelevant in the Hindu society.

The main institutions of Hinduism can be seen as two sets of orthogonal arrangements – those of the rajya and those of the rashtra. First is the set of state institutions - administration, governance, military etc. These are essentially hierarchical and

represent a power structure. Second is the set of social institutions – knowledge traditions, practicing religions and spiritual traditions, the jati or ethno-cultural communities, the occupational lineages etc. These are diverse and interrelated, but are not hierarchical. There is a clear definition for each of the institutions, its goal, scope and purpose. The purpose of all the institutions put together, is to enable individuals in fulfilling the purpose of human life and achieve the primary goals of life. While individuals pursue diverse goals, the most general purposes of those are four-fold (the purusharthas). The understanding of the meaning and purpose of human life follows from the theory of causation, of universe and life. Thus the Hindu institutions blend microcosm with macrocosm, relate the individual to collectivity in a way that the purposes of individual form part of those of the collectivity. This is done by identifying cosmic principle in the individual and vice versa. The cosmic order is called Rta, whose micro counterpart which is identified in microcosm as Dharma, the natural righteous order. The fulfillment of individual functions which are micro manifestations of cosmic functions, and their realization as such, is the pervasive idea behind Hindu traditions. Similar to the dichotomy of left and right, even the dichotomy of duty and right is also not the lines along with the Hindu institutions define their goals. Thus the institutions are not created on the basis of individual right or respect or ego, but on the basis of the purpose of life. Both duties and rights are implicit in the concept of fulfillment of life and its purpose. The actions that lead to the fulfillment of the purpose of life are inspired by basic human desires, conscience and instincts. Thus the institutions that are based on the goals of life are self-sustaining and self-regulating, and do not need an external machinery to control or regulate it. As scholars like Sri Aurobindo and Ananda Coomaraswamy noted about a century ago, the occidental society is shaped around rights and duties, which is quite different from the Hindu concept of basing on the meaning and purpose of life. The primary flaw in this idea is that there is no natural inspiration towards duties. Thus the sustenance of these institutions needs external inspiration and a machinery to enforce execution of duty. This explains the reason why oriental institutions sustained for thousands of years by regulating, feeding, reforming themselves while the foundations of the occidental institutions such as family are fast eroding. This also explains why today in India the society at large is peace-loving and self-regulating, and maintains remarkably healthy social institutions in spite of relatively weak state institutions and leadership. In contrast, the health of western societies is largely owing to their strong and vigilant state machinery and in spite of weakening social institutions. Varna

The limbs of society are thus replicas of the limbs of cosmic being. Varna as we can see in the diagram, is not a community-based institution but an abstraction, a model that describes the macro view of the society. Thus when people say Varna is not identified by birth but is a descriptive term that explains society in a four-fold model, they actually are not being apologetics. Jati, an ethno-cultural unit is the one that identifies the group an individual belongs to by birth. And Varna not only transcends the institutions like Jati but overlooks the entire social framework. It is a well-known (and well defamed) concept that the four-fold social functions that varna defines are represented as limbs of the primal cosmic being (Purusha). This pantheistic representation is very much used today in the western societies with some censoring. For instance heads and all-hands is a known corporate notion that treats senior management as head and the execution staff as hands of an organization. However it shies away from calling your peon staff legs, both because it does not count the concept of running of the organization as leg work and because it is a sign of disrespect. But if we look at who actually causes an organization to *run*, it is not really the peon staff, at least in the corporate world. Thus this varna-pantheism is both misunderstood and misrepresented. The sudra functions in a society are those that run the society and include as much of a spectrum of activities as the Kshatriya functions. For instance while governance, administration, military etc are Kshatriya functions, those like engineering, metallurgy, architecture, sculpture, agriculture form the sudra functions. And each of these has a range of activities right from research and policy making to the spade work. Therefore there is no reason to believe that in a living society where each group is proud of what it is doing, the pantheistic notion undermines the dignity of any group. Religion While religion just another social institution, it needs an explicit mention both because of its impact on life and because it is the area where much of the distortion and propaganda takes place. Since the Hindu terminology, religious or otherwise is centered on truth/knowledge/experience and not around faith, the dogma or ignorance is clearly recognized as an inevitable individual phenomenon and was never allowed to enter the basic tenets of any tradition. This is the basis of Hindu approach to religion, whether it is about believing in diversity or pluralism. Any religion or for that matter any concept is only seen as one of the infinite alternative approaches to the same principle of Truth/Beauty. Unfortunately we saw a distortion of the basic concepts along the lines of occidental notions, part of it deliberate, part of it due to applying occidental framework to oriental knowledge and most of it because of the destruction of traditional education. A few examples –

1. Deva/Isvara as God. The former is a complex concept, a combination of philosophical principle of causation, a consciousness principle, sometimes an astronomical symbol, an aesthetic principle, a theological principle etc., while the latter is expressly a theological concept.

2. Nireeswara (being agnostic to a singular causal principle) as atheism. 3. Sraddha (attentiveness, meticulousness, commitment etc) as faith. 4. Sadhana (pursuit of a vidya/knowledge) as a religious practice/faith exercise.

This led us to buy false equivalences between the concepts that are not equivalent by any standard. The other most important difference is that religion is never a supreme institution in Hindu society in spite of the society being predominantly spiritual. The scope of religious traditions was limited to religion, and both in terms of knowledge and society it always remained a relevant subset of the overall framework. Thus the theocratic tendencies in Hindu kingdoms were curtailed, and though there were aberrations they were aberrations which were corrected rather than uncontrolled excesses. Non-Translatability Issue Rajiv Malhotra in his “Being Different” mentions the need to recognize the Hindu terminology that has no equivalents in English. The reason why these words are non-translatable is that the concepts underlying are not known to occidental societies. However this in my view is only partially correct. While the occidental societies are not dharma based, it is very much possible to accurately define these words in English – something like natural righteous order. It is not always necessary to have a single word in English that accurately describes a Sanskrit or native Hindu word. There are bad translations in vogue they need to be corrected. On the other hand there are already several words like Guru, Karma that are being used in English communication without a lot of difficulty. However, there is a deeper problem than this – the Sanskrit language and Hindu thought in general is not jargon or noun-centric but is verb-centric. The verbal roots or dhatu-s are of primary importance in Sanskrit. Therefore conveying Hindu thought in English is not difficult because of nouns, but because of verbal nuances. For instance, there was an article recently published (read it here http://www.hinduhumanrights.info/brahman-is-not-god/) which argues that the Hindu notion of Brahman is not the same as the Abrahamic notion of God. Now I do not see any difficulty in the nouns, because Brahman is fairly translatable as The Absolute. The real problem is the way we interpret “is not”. This is not a language problem but a concept problem. This “is not” is a well-known philosophical style in Hindu thought –the “neti”. And when a Hindu says “is not” with Brahman, he has in the back of his mind the

whole Upanishadic neti argumentation. This Sri Aurobindo actually translates to English and expresses excellently, by devoting paragraphs to what the “is not” means. This issue is not limited to the metaphysical concepts but to the entire range of alankara-s, upamana-s and logical deduction. Therefore the expression of Hindu thought in English in a way that people untrained in formal Hindu traditions understand requires recognition of the fact that the real problem is verb-centric. It is definitely a bigger exercise to actually explain those concepts, but it requires us to recognize the issue more precisely.

Orient and Occident – IV

Principle of Action and Righteousness

Hindu knowledge is consciousness-centric. Most of the concepts underlying Hindu institutions

are also based on the Hindu conception of truth or more importantly the consciousness of truth,

most precisely worded by Sri Aurobindo as Truth-consciousness. Therefore presenting a Hindu

view of the world or reversing the gaze at occidental worldviews should happen ideally from

consciousness perspective.

One of the central points of difference between Hindu and western worldviews as many

scholars including Rajiv Malhotra note, is the notion of Dharma. But a proper understanding of

Dharma and western life can come not by comparing the moral frameworks of East and West,

but by comparing the consciousness frameworks from where the human conduct (ethical or

otherwise) is understood and explained.

Dharma

Nature can be understood through two of its primal aspects – consciousness quality (guNa) and

action (karma). Dharma or natural righteous order is determined by these two aspects. This is

one of the foundational notions in Dharmic systems, and is visible in the society, language,

culture and view of life.

For instance Sanskrit as a language, has very few proper nouns – most of its nouns are indicative

of quality or action. The minority of nouns which are not grammatically so, are formed by the

combination of beeja-s that are in turn indicative of subtle natural phenomena. This just reflects

the Hindu worldview. Quality/nature and action (guNa and karma), the two primal phenomena

form the bases for the entire understanding of world in Hindu traditions.

Dharma as the goal of life is the fulfillment of dharma the natural order. Dharma or

righteousness is not an imperative, but a purpose of life. Goals of life are four-fold, and

fulfillment of being and attainment of complete happiness can happen through their

attainment. Since dharma is the aligning principle of the nature of a being and its actions and

thus its fulfillment, dharma is itself the first and foremost goals whose fulfillment leads to the

fulfillment of the remaining three.

Fulfillment of purposes of life, attainment of happiness through the different faculties of

consciousness (senses, mind, intellect, ego and the entire being) in a graded way is the basic

theme in Sanatana Dharma. Attainment of happiness of the highest order (ananda) is the end to

which all human aspiration is, according to all the worldviews (darsanas).

Dharma, Kant and Maslow

There is a misconception that the imperative in Kantian morality is universal and objective, and

that Dharma’s imperative is subjective. Many buy into this by making a superficial comparison.

Categorical imperative says that an action should be such that it can become a universal law.

However how to judge if something is a universal law, what is it subject to, and how can

something not be subject to anything when actors and actions are always bound by subjective

factors is not something many care to talk of. In short, the imperative only tells you what can

become a moral fact and what cannot in the general sense – and it does not in itself relate

morality to actors, actions, conditions and consciousness.

Dharma is natural righteous order which manifests in all beings, something existent and learned

from nature. It is not an imperative but is the law which determines the experiences of beings

and fruits of action. It is the basic law of cause and effect, on which the theory of Karma is

based. Dharma is thus the intrinsic nature of beings. And dhArmik acts like speaking the truth

and being nonviolent, is the intrinsic nature of beings.

What becomes a “law” in dhArmik framework is something that is in the intrinsic nature of

beings. Thus an “imperative” in Dharma traditions if one has to state, would be as simple as–

“realize your true nature, be true to your nature”. This actually relates directly to actors, actions,

situations and consciousness, and is not limited to stating moral facts. When there is a cosmic

order that is pervasive and whose micro manifestation is the intrinsic nature, the order can

hardly be subjective – it is universal by definition, while at the same time keeping in tune with

the phenomenal diversity.

Nature and action are both rooted in consciousness. Thus a proper contrast between Dharma

and Kantian morality cannot be made unless a more fundamental contrast can be made

between the consciousness frameworks. Even for the west to understand the eastern concepts,

they need to approach it through consciousness study of Hinduism, since that explains the

continuity between many of the apparently unconnected concepts.

Consciousness study in Hinduism is a well-developed subject and influences most of the

subjects, metaphysical as well as physical. Understanding consciousness qualities and

consciousness layers/sheaths helps us understand the bases for concepts like Dharma too. In

Hinduism the source of morality is consciousness itself, and manifests differently at different

levels of consciousness. The dhArmik behavior or morality is in the intrinsic nature of beings,

and how dhArmik or adhArmik an action is, is determined not just based on a moral law but on

the basis of the consciousness quality and the sheath to which the being belongs.

In Hindu metaphysics there are five sheaths of consciousness, which are grouped into three

bodies of the being. The outer sheaths have to do with physiological needs, inner/deeper ones

with psychic plane and still deeper ones with impersonal knowledge. Human evolution is

defined in terms of increasing manifestation of the intrinsic nature and decrease the

manifestation of outward nature. An easy way to understand this model is by mapping sheaths

these to Maslow’s pyramid of hierarchical needs. Thus the outward nature of a being is driven

more by needs (of the lower layers of Maslow pyramid or the outer sheaths of consciousness)

and the intrinsic nature is driven more by urge for knowledge, aesthetics etc. (corresponding to

upper layers of Maslow pyramid or inner sheaths of consciousness). So when we say the being’s

intrinsic nature is to be truthful, it is because the object of consumption of intrinsic nature is

truth-beauty (self-actualization and self-transcendence layers of Maslow pyramid) and not food-

sense pleasure-ego gratification (physiological, survival, self-esteem layers of Maslow pyramid).

So to speak the truth is the default intrinsic nature, which can be distorted by lower needs of

man. We can apply the same logic to another moral fact – of nonviolence. While violence is an

extrinsic natural fact and a basic survival method, and life sustains by consuming life,

nonviolence still becomes a default in intrinsic nature.

So it turns out that the categorical imperative hardly compares with Dharma as a subject. It

covers a part of what Dharma actually deals with. Maslow’s social psychology indeed comes

quite close to the Hindu scheme of consciousness and identifies the source of morality in human

consciousness as the plane of self-actualization, though it does not get into the theory of

morality much. However Maslow also comes close to identifying the levels of fulfillment of

beings, which correspond to the different sheaths of consciousness and different goals of life

according to Hindu thought.

The different aspects like morality, purposes of life, consciousness, happiness and excellence,

epistemology and cosmic philosophy form part of a complex concept like Dharma which acts as

the main guide of life in Hindu worldview. In contrast hierarchy of needs, categorical imperative

etc. form different subjects and guide different institutions in the west. This again, substantiates

our observation of the main difference between Hindu and western worldviews: that there is a

common structure of knowledge and society in the east that reconciles and develops the several

aspects of life and different forms of knowledge; and that the different facets of life develop

from different concepts and different institutions in the west.

Nature as Teacher and the Trustee

The notion of Dharma brings us to an important theme in Hindu thought – of seeing Nature as

the ultimate teacher. It is not just about understanding Nature and Her workings, but about

basing the design of the most evolved human institutions on such lessons.

The philosophical schools see matter and consciousness as the two primal principles of creation,

and nature to be the primal mother of all beings – the sustainer, the giver of upAdhi-s or

faculties of experience, the provider of phenomenal experiences that beget beings the three-

fold experiences of life. In the capacity of the primal giver, She is also the primal teacher, the

giver of the most instinctive to the most sublime knowledge. Thus the knowledge that man gains

from his experience of nature, forms the basis both for the knowledge system and the social

institutions that he creates and keeps refining.

For instance the principle of complementarity as learned from nature, from phenomena like day

and night, male and female, matter and consciousness. It is then articulated as nyAya-s like

pangvandha and daghdhAswa-dagdharatha, and applied at all levels of the Hindu knowledge. At

the level of epistemology and spiritual philosophy, it is employed for deductively establishing

the premises of philosophical schools like sankhya. At the theological level it is seen as the

complementarity of head and central deities. At the micro-society level it is seen as the

complementarity of head and center of family.

What changes and what does not change, and what should be the basis for a permanent

institution and what not, is something that is learned from the transient and intransient

phenomena of nature. The longevity of Hindu institutions is owing to the fact that they are

based on unchanging principles of world such as consciousness and not on ideals. This is

precisely the reason it is called the eternal order or the Sanatana Dharma. Hinduism reposes

trust in Nature and the intrinsic nature of beings. So the Hindu institutions are fashioned after

nature – to be self-sustaining, self-regulating and evolving.

Hindu worldview not only sees nature as a teacher, but sees human as an indistinguishable

element of nature. Evolution of human society is a fact learned from the bigger system,

evolution in nature. Natural order is inherently just, although means employed are just and

unjust, moral and immoral, fair and unfair – towards the ends of serving the evolutionary and

ultimately just cause. Thus Hindu worldviews trust human nature as much, and assume that if

founded on principles close to nature human society is capable of evolving itself into a civilized

order. Collective morality is a consequence of this, and builds from the individual.

In stark contrast, the occidental institutions inherently distrust nature. They primarily believe in

envisioning a human system that makes use of and exploits nature rather than trusting its

inherent fair or moral nature. Ideals like fairness, freedom and equality are sought to be

achieved in the western institutions by controlling the society and running it with those ideals.

This precisely is the reason why state in the west assumes so much of control over the nation

while a Hindu state merely kept facilitating the nation. Thus regulation in occidental societies is

imposed by state and not through society’s inherent self-regulation. Ideals are temporal

manifestations of the dynamic principle of truth. Western institutions are based on evolving

ideals, hence remaining only temporally applicable and valid. So we see new ideologies and

institutions emerging, one to fix what the other broke.

The reason for this is that the west sees nature primarily as a form of matter rather than a form

of consciousness. Hence only the cruder and physical aspects are learned from nature, as a

physical mother. This concept does not permeate the deeper layers of consciousness, since they

are not sought to be seen in the nature.

In fact what Rajiv Malhotra calls out as the difference between “synthetic and integral” applies

to order more than unity or Truth – the very premise of order being synthetic or integral. What

he calls “disembodiment”, is a consequence of seeing body as void of consciousness and

treating it as an object. To trust the instincts of body, to subordinate it to those of subtle body is

not a thing that the occidental institutions base themselves on. This is because they do not

acknowledge the principle that nature acts through man – they believe man is the operating

principle. In Hindu worldviews man is intelligent because of the natural intelligence principle

that flows through him.

Social Order and Morality

As mentioned, Maslow’s hierarchy rightly identifies the consciousness layers and identifies the

deeper ones as the source of morality. However this layering is not really a hierarchy

translatable in a society or even an organization, which is where Maslow’s relevance gets

constrained. For instance if morality’s source is the plane of self-actualization, how would you

propel someone working for survival needs to stick to morals? This brings us to the need for an

arrangement envisioned from the highest layer, but applicable to all layers. This is why ideals in

the west flow from the top.

In the Hindu scheme on the other hand, these layers do not present a hierarchy but concentric

layers of being, and goals of life being four-fold and orthogonal to these sheaths. Thus dharma

or righteousness forms the bottommost and first to be achieved, based on which any other goal

or fulfillment is made possible. This makes dharma an obligation for every fulfillment, for all the

pursuits corresponding to all the layers of hierarchy.

Secondly, Maslow hierarchy does not form the basis for social organization in the west, nor is it

actually reconciled with a moral scheme (Kantian or otherwise) to form the basis for a social

organization. It is used mostly as a theory of psychology and as a means to achieve excellence in

businesses. Western moral notion is not the basis for a social structure in the west. In India, the

consciousness quality and moral scheme actually form the basis for the social design.

This explains why Hindus call themselves a dharmik society and why the west is not called a

“moral” society. It has nothing to do with how many individuals are morally upright, it is

whether at the macro level the social design is itself based on a well-established scheme of

morality and consciousness of morality. There are many who argue that if Hindus have their

value system the west has its own. But they miss this crucial point. The westerners have values,

not the western social design. The society is not stratified on the basis of a theory of

consciousness qualities or morality associated with those.

Dharma is not based on ideals but on nature, and thus defines the functions of each role that

beings involve in at different levels of collectivity. As an individual, as a member of a family in

different capacities, as a member of society, as a sustaining element of several institutions, he

has varied roles, and through all these he is ultimately fulfilling himself and bringing

completeness to his being through his experiences. Thus dharma builds from the individual, and

does not flow from top as ideals like freedom and equality do.

While needs are hierarchical according to Maslow, it does not really mean human pursuits are

hierarchical – they are constrained by several factors, situational or otherwise. What ensures

the fulfillment of these needs, is the stratification of pursuits corresponding to these needs and

creation of spheres where such pursuits are possible. This happens with the definition of goals

of these pursuits – which in the Hindu context are the four-fold purposes of life, three-fold

experiences, three-fold states and the one experience that underlies all this - happiness.

Goals of Life

Dharma aligns the being, his aspiration and capability with the infinite possibilities of fulfillment

of potential of the being. The fulfillment of Dharma results in striking rhythm with one’s true

nature. Striking rhythm with the individual’s true nature is the way to uncover the immense

potential of the being. Hence Dharma is the first goal of life, whose fulfillment forms the basis

for fulfillment of higher goals.

It positions people for the tallest goals by aligning with the evolution of beings, as they assume

less personal and more impersonal pursuits the more evolved they are. Maslow attests this fact

too when he says “self-actualizing people are interested in things beyond their skin”. They are

driven by needs in early stage, then by ego, and then by truth-consciousness.

However the most essential aspect where the very model of hierarchy fails is that it does not

depict is the two-fold pursuits involved in life, or the two main phases. The first phase is a

growth phase – which is essentially materially enriching. Artha and kama, the two goals

contingent on Dharma, are the ones pursued in this phase. This is the pravritti phase. In this

phase man not only caters to his self-esteem and other desires, but primarily contributes to the

creation of wealth/resources and sustenance of social institutions.

The second phase is essentially internal enrichment and outward detachment. Moksha or the

state of highest happiness is the goal of human pursuits in this phase. In this phase man

continues to contribute in the creation of knowledge. Self-actualization and self-transcendence

layers of Maslow hierarchy correspond to this phase, but by depicting them above the lower

layers Maslow misses differentiating the very nature of human pursuits at these layers. And this

differentiation is what helps a proper stratification of society in a way that it allows the pursuit

of these goals for different beings. That is because human life is short and beings start at

different layers of needs. People do not start pursuing the same goals, as it requires people to

demonstrate their capability and qualify for pursuits. Thus goals cannot be hierarchical, they can

only be phased. Hindu society addresses this problem by separating human evolution into two

main phases, and making goals non-hierarchical.

The possibility of pursuing goals arises from (1) capability and potential of individual (2) social

opportunity. In Hindu arrangement the higher the goal is, the lesser is the dependence of man

on external means and social opportunity. Thus there is a detachment of social opportunity

which makes higher goals reachable for society regardless of its stratification in terms of power

and economy.

While there is a natural requirement of qualification for persons to certain pursuits in the state

hierarchy or specialized social functions, the pursuit of highest goals of life does not require any

such qualification. Thus unconditional happiness or moksha sAdhana is a birth right of every

being, regardless of capability, quality of birth (even species of birth as a matter of fact).

Individual and Society

The way an individual is related to society and state in a dhArmik society is based on an ideal

resolution of the vyashti-samishti dichotomy. Man’s concentric life layers are well acknowledged

– individual, family, community, nation, state, universe etc. In the form of multiple levels of

collectivity, there is a graded guard of individual freedom – both in terms of enabling and

constraining it. Power is also accumulated at different levels, thus empowering the society

without excessively empowering the state. Thus a more intimate and aware collectivity

continuously helps individuals guide their lives, while at the same time enabling them execute

social functions with a collective instead of individual capital. The immense social strength that

this arrangement gives, can be seen from the resilience of India in the face of relentless attacks

on its civilization for centuries – something hardly visible anywhere else in the world. For the

most part societies can retain only that identity which the state foists on them – as can be seen

all over middle-east and Europe for instance. But in India even after centuries of alien state and

a currently prevailing proxy-colonial state, the society’s identity remains what its national and

social identity had been for ages.

In the west, the individual is out-powered by the state to an extent that even identities have to

be approved by state. As Gurumuthy notes appropriately (though in a slightly exaggerated way),

the west nationalizes family and privatizes state. Excessive explicit micro-level legal norms are

the primary symptom of this. The norms are also indicative of a non-vigilant and non-self-

regulating society that seeks ideals to flow down rather than build from bottom.

Case of Inability

The highest goal of life being unconditional happiness, its qualification is only with respect to the

ability of an individual to experience it. Therefore in Hindu society most of the descriptions of

abilities and disabilities is done with respect to this ultimate ability of experiencing happiness.

For instance whether the being can see the world or not (physical blindness), whether a being

can enjoy beauty or not (lacking aesthetic sense), whether a being can put aside his ego to

realize the truth or not, whether a being can enjoy his sense of ownership or not (lack of self-

esteem) and so on. The ability of a being to derive the greatest happiness depends on the layer

of pursuits, the involved faculties that are experiencing the state of happiness etc. Disability

applies to each of these. Sankhya enlists twenty eight kinds of indriya asAmarthya or disabilities

which are impediments in a being’s experience of the world or in other words in the experience

of happiness.

In contrast the understanding of disability and the sense of guilt with which the west

approaches the issue is rooted very much in the layer of self-esteem. The way disabilities of

mind are seen as a stigma and people with such disability are separated from the society, the

way people with physical disability are seen with a rather apologetic approach by usage of

words like “differently abled” to soothe the self-esteem, demonstrate this. In Hindu society

there is no “mental disability” or the notion of lunatic asylum itself. This is because the spectrum

of mental activity when seen from the overall consciousness perspective, most are hardly

“disorders” – they are correctible within the self-regulatory mechanism of a dharmik society.

In fact the self-correcting ability applies to many aspects of life and not just a disorder. The level

of tolerance to individual misconduct apparently, is on one hand high and on the other hand the

bar of right conduct is also held very high. This is just because the diversity and range that can

be handled and self-corrected within the social framework is high. Individual conduct is

tolerated to a bigger degree as well as regulated to a bigger degree in a live and vigilant society

that has multiple levels of collectivity. The tolerance arises from the ability to regulate, as well as

the awareness of a bigger spectrum of human consciousness.

PS: Whenever the topic of Maslow hierarchy came up with likeminded friends over years, the

inevitable question also arose – whether Maslow was really ignorant of the centuries old and

celebrated panca-kosa theory? However this is not very relevant to our topic, so we choose not

to go into that.

Appeared at:

http://centreright.in/2013/04/orient-and-occident-i/ http://centreright.in/2013/04/orient-and-occident-ii/ http://centreright.in/2013/04/orient-and-occident-iii-structure-knowledge/ http://centreright.in/2013/07/orient-and-occident-iv-principle-of-action-and-righteousness/