NISHKAMA KARMA-DISINTERESTED ACTION

By Dr. Satyavrat Siddhantalankar

Vedic Culture

WE HAVE already observed that the way of life prescribed by Vedic culture was one of ‘Enjoyment-Renunciation.’ What does this phrase ‘Enjoyment-Renunciation’ means? It means that as the worldof beauty and attraction is palpable, real, and actually exists, we should enjoy it; but as all this gradually fades into unreality and slips out of our hands there should come a  time in our lives when we should voluntarily renounce it. We should be of the world but not be ‘too much of it, we may live at life of attachment but live it in a detached, dispassionate, and unconcerned manner.

There is a great difference between living with some longings, desires, and cravings always haunting us day and night, thus making our lives restless and miserable, and living free from them in a serene mood and performing our duties for the sake oi‘ performing them. “This difference has been stressed in Vedic literature in which the Gita occupies the first and foremost place. The Gita is the biggest diamond in the entire mound of Vedic gems, placed as it were on its very top, whose facets will ever shine and continue to attract the hearts of men through the lights, the mists, and the darknesses of all eternity. The Gita which is based on the Upanishads has influenced indian  thought for centuries and moulded the lives of our people.

Time was when the teachings of selfless action contained in the Upanishuds were misinterpreted and bracketed with inaction and thus the quintessence of spiritualism was narrowed clown to the renunciation of the world, the wearing of saffron robes, and sitting idle at home. This development naturally can caused concern among the philosophers and thinkers of the day. And it was thus that the Gita was written to present the philosophy enunciated in the Upanishnds, the Vedanta, and other religious scriptures in its true perspective, and to emphasize that what was required was the renunciation of the desire for the fruits of our actions and not the acts themselves. Hence it came about that the Gita. replaced the prevailing theory of inaction by a dynamically novel theory of disinterested action or Nishkam Karma. The Gita presented to the world the central thought of Indian culture at a time when it had almost fallen into oblivion. .

The central thought of the Upanishads, of the Vedanta, of all that is pure and noble in Vedic culture, is that in the world of matter Brahma or God is the ultimate reality, and that Atma is the reality as well as the truth in our bodily existence and life. Although the existence of this world of matter and the body cannot be denied. Yet the truth is that behind this body there is the spirit or the soul, and that behind the physical world lurks the Spirit Supreme. The body and the physical world are beyond 21 reasonable doubt real but it is also true that the spirit and the Spirit Supreme are far more real, and it is for the latter that the Former exist.

T he Gita upholds: the body is a reality, so make use of it and enjoy it with the help of the senses, but remember that the ultimate reality is not the body but the spirit, so do not be too much involved with the senses. The world of matter is also a reality, so indulge in the pleasures that it offers, but remember that the ultimate reality is not the material world but the Spirit Supreme that animates it, so prepare yourself also to renounce the world. It is at mistake to think that the Upanishads and the Vedanta teach the philosophy of inaction. Vedic culture as propounded in the Gita imparts to the world the philosophy of disinterested action, selfless action, in place of inaction or selfish action. The Gita. thus dispelled the clouds of misconception which had darkened the outlook and paralysed the social machinery for centuries.

Arjuna’s Stand of Inaction or Renunciation

The conception of selfless disinterested action is the rock on which the edifice of Vedic culture stands, and since this ideal no where finds better expression than in the Gita, we shall devote this entire chapter to its discussion and also give copious quotations from the text.

The Gita begins with Dhritarashtra’s address to Sanjaya: ‘Sanjaya, assembled on the holy field of Kurukshetra, eager to light, what did my children and the children of Pandu do?“

In the course of an answer giving an eye-witness account of the battlefield, Sanjay says: ‘O Lord, when the fight was about to start, Arjuna asked Shri Krishna to place his chariot between the two armies confronting each other and keep it there till he observed those with whom he had to fight. Shri Krishna acceded to his request. When Arjuna turned his eyes all around he saw his own kith and kin assembled to fight against him. At the sight of these kinsmen thus arrayed and longing for battle his limbs gave way, his frame shook, and his hair stood on end. He confided to Shri Krishna saying’:

‘The bow, Gandiva, drops from my hand and my skin burns all over. My mind is reeling as it were, and I am not able even to stand. l covet not victory, nor kingdoms, nor pleasures. Govinda, of what use will kingdom. or luxuries, or even life be to me if l gain the whole world and lose my own kith and kin?

On seeing Arjuna thus giving way to despondency, Shri Krishna said: ‘Arjuna, how hast this infatuation overtaken thee at this odd hour? Such a mental state is shunned by noble souls; neither will it bring heaven nor lame to thee. ‘Yield not to unmanliness, Arjuna; ill does it become thee‘ Shaking oil‘ this paltry faint-heartedness arise, O scorcher of thy enemies.’-“

Shri Krishna’s Stand of Disinterestedness

Who would not have begun to consider the world as false and treacherous, a place full of Maya, after seeing close relations who had played and laughed with one another in their infancy as well as aged together now arrayed on the battlefield for power and pelf, each thirsting For the other’s blood? Centuries ago this made Arjuna disgusted with earthly existence. Even today if one were to view life in a background one would find oneself in a similar frame of mind. .t was Shri Krishna’s teachings as contained in the Gita that infused new life into the despondent Arjuna and brought him back to the battlefield after he had decided to renounce the world.

What did Shri Krishna teach? Did  he tell Arjuna that this world was a place of enjoyment and therefore he should kill his kith and kin and indulge himself in worldly pleasures? No. What he taught was entirely different.  “The arguments he put forward to convince Arjuna to stick to the battlefield were not materialistic. In fact, they were as much spiritual in nature as were the arguments advanced by Arjuna for not fighting. Shri Krishna  also, like Arjuna, spoke of the body as being perishable; he said that death was nothing but a casting aside of the body like the change of worn-out clothes, and that it was only the Anna which is eternal and everlasting While the body is perishable and Short-lived. But wherein, then, lay the difference between the outlook of Arjuna and Shri Krishna?

 The protagonists of stark spiritualism regard the world as unreal, as a sort of a show or a fair, only to be shunned, and hence run away from it. Arjuna had also for the time being fallen in tune with this strain. However, Shri Krishna as an exponent of Vedie culture never asks us to run away from the realities of life. According to the teachings of Shri Krishna, this world of matter is unsubstantial and transitory, but there is no suggestion in his gospel for renunciation; it no doubt regards the body as perishable, but it does not talk of idleness or inaction. The doctrine that Shri Krishna taught Arjuna was only the old Vedic idea of treating the World of matter and sense objects as solid and real, and thus to face rather than to run away from the problems of life, simultaneously stressing that the reality of the world beyond was also undisputed.

Krishna’s Stand was an Explanation of the Spiritual Secret

It is indeed a novel thought to regard this world as unsubstantial, and yet to live in it and enjoy it in all its fullness. It is a new ideology revealed to the world by Shri Krishna in his dialogue with Arjuna as set forth in the Gita and it is thus that he calls it a secret.

 This World, for the materialists is both sovereign and supreme, and therefore, it is but natural and reasonable that they should cling on to this earthly existence. it is also fair and reasonable for the spiritualists to try to escape from the world because they always think of it as untrue, transitory, and unsubstantial.

 But the novel idea propounded by Shri Krishna in his Gita is to regard this world as false, unsubstantial, and transitory and yet to face its problems, to dive deep into worldly matters, and not to run away from them. And  it is this which should be the only true and  correct approach despite its apparent contradiction.

Shri Krishna realized that persons with less intelligence would find this idea to be both confusing as well as self-contradictory. And it was for this reason that he described it as a secret, and regarded it as a conception of immortal Yoga which could not be understood without the guidance of a spiritual teacher. He says: ‘I taught this immortal Yoga to Vivaswan (Sun~god); Vivaswan conveyed it to Mann (his son); and Manu imparted it to his son Ikswaku.

‘Thus handed down from father to son, Arjuna, this Yoga remained known to the Rajarshis (royal sages). With a long lapse of time, however, it has more or less disappeared. ‘The same ancient Yoga has this day been imparted to you by Me, because you are My devotee and friend and also because this is a supreme secret.

It is clear from this part of the Gita that this novel proposition of regarding the world of matter s being ultimately ephemeral, and yet to live in it and enjoy it in all its fullness, though seemingly contradictory had been attempted to be reconciled by a series of mystic teachers from Vivaswan downwards.”It is the reconciliation of this contradiction which has been called a secret, a Yoga a mystic method traditionally revealed by the teacher to his disciple, and handed down from sire to son. Shri Krishna says that the secret of reconciling the reality with the unreality, taught by the saints and sages of Vedic culture, had been lost and therefore contradictory ideologies of materialism and spiritualism had sprung up which pulled one against the other. This was the secret revealed by Shri Krishna to Arjuna in the course of his teachings enshrined in the  Gita, and described therein as a path of Karma Yoga or Nishkam Karma. Shri Krishna, however, made it abundantly clear that he was not evolving some new principle, but was merely revealing an old secret by letting it fly out of the box wherein it had laid hidden for centuries and was thus covered with the dust of misconception. This was the secret message of Vedic culture which the people had been receiving from time to time, sometime through Vivaswan, sometime through Manu, sometime through Ikswaku, and it was the same secret which was delivered, for the last time, by Shri Krishna to Arjuna during the frustrated condition of his mind.

The Path of Yoga and the Path of Sankhya Philosophy Compared This secret teaching of the Gita can only be clearly understood through a comparative study and knowledge of the path of Yoga and the path of Sankhya. The Gita contains a clear out distinction between these two paths, because at the time the Gita was written these two approaches were considered as diametrically opposite to each other. The name given to the path of Yoga was the path of action (Karma Yoga or Karma Marga), whereas the synonym for the path of Sankhya was the path of inaction (Karma Sanyasa) or the path of knowledge (Jnyana Marga or Jnyana Yoga). The Gita states: ‘Arjuna, there are only two disciplines in the world-— the path of  action and the path of knowledge. The path of action is called the path of Yoga and the path of knowledge is called thepath of Sankhya.’

It was not only during Krishna’s period that there existed these two disciplines. Nachiketa also referred to these two paths in Katha Upanishad and even today these two disciplines are at the root of the entire social structure. According to the Gita, the path of Yoga is superior to the path of Sankhya, the path of action is superior to the path of knowledge, Karma Yoga is superior to Jnyana Yoga. The exponents of the Sankhya philosophy who thought that they had delved deeply into the realms of knowledge taught inaction. They held the view that this world was unsubstantial, that work only generated miseries in life, and hence it should be renounced. Their philosophy was that if we do not work, wherefrom would the miseries come? Arjuna who was being persuaded to fight and win an empire  to rule over, naturally asked himself: Why, why, when all the things of the world are fleeting‘? This world is unsubstantial; the one who is our brother today fights with us as our enemy tomorrow. What shall we do with the achievements of  this world? It is far better to renounce than to be entangled in sense objects and to experience the resultant misery and sorrow.

Arjuna had started following the path of Sankhya or the path of inaction. On seeing this, Shri Krishna exhorted him not to speak the language of frustration He said that nothing could be achieved in this world, even the simple everyday dealings would be impossible if we try to escape from action. He stated: ‘Surely none can remain inactive even for a moment; every one is helplessly driven to action by nature, he may will it or not.

The Problem

Whatever the world may be, true or false, substantial or hollow, real or illusory, we have nevertheless been thrown into it; and hence it is impossible not to work, or to remain inactive, as advocated by the Sankhya exponents. But if we work, the consequent miseries would be inevitable. How can one get rid of or avoid them? This was the problem of Arjuna and this was the problem not of Arjuna alone, it is the universal problem that Faces each and every one of us.

Not the Renunciation of Action but the Renunciation of the Fruits of our Actions is the Solution to the Problem

The solution to this problem, given by Shri Krishna, is the essence of Vedic culture. The Gita poses the questions: why should we give up work or action? Why should we renounce /the World as demanded by the Sankhya school of philosophy? It is it because we are afraid that we might get attached to this world, and that this attachment might sweep us off our feet into the quicksands of entanglements in life? The Gita condemns this, and says that this attitude is neither befitting us with regard to this World nor will it win us heaven in the next. Why should we not try to evolve some way which might enable us to work uninterrupted and yet not be bound up into its meshes of entanglement? Since it is an impossibility for us to live without doing work, why should we not devise a method which would enable us to lead a life of action and yet not be chained by it. We could then kill two birds with one stone. Is this not possible. The Gita holds out a positive answer which may be considered to be the beams of a. candle shining forth from the dark and dingy corners of entanglement. The Gita, the repository of Vedic wisdom, enunciates the theory of action but the highlight of this theory is that one should not be affected by the results of one‘s actions. It is advises us to remain in the world because once we are born there is no escape from it, but at the same time not to be lost in the world, to enjoy the world of senses without being led astray by the senses, to spin the yarn of Karma on the spinning wheel of life but not to lot at knot in it despoil the yarn. This advice of the Gita is called Karma Yoga or the Yoga of action or Nishkama Karma.

But it can one live in the world and still remain unattached? ls it possible to live a life of action and yet be free from its clutches? Whilst describing this advocated path of life whereby One lives in the world, acts, and yet is free from the Fruits of the act, the Gita says: ‘Your control can be only over the actions you perform, not over their results. Inactive by nature you cannot remain; while acting you cannot order the results to your liking. Perform therefore whatever actions you have to, O Arjuna, with a sense of non-attachment to the results thereof. You should keep yourself in balance in success or failure. This is called the action of one who has settled down in Yoga mind.’ in a word, the Yoga school of philosophy, accepted by the Gita, decries all inaction propounded by the Sankhya school and urges us to live a life of action, but to act with a feeling of non-attachment to the result. Thus we shade the path of action with the pines of mental balance and equilibrium as well as with the roses of calmness and unperturbedness in the event of rains or sunshine.

But the Sankhya philosophy solves this problem in a different Way. The followers of the marga of Sankhya or the path oi‘ inaction question: Work? Why should we work? For whom should We work?

This world is ephemeral, untrue, and unsubstantial. It is better for us to do no work at all if we want to avoid the miseries attendant on our work. Thus if we want to live happily we must rally under the banner of Sankhya and avoid all work. This philosophy may be compared to Tennyson’s view when he states that ‘We only toil, who are the first of things, And make perpetual moan’ and further  questions ‘Why should we only toil, the roof and crown of things?’ Tennyson also concludes that we should not work if we want to avoid the miseries of life.

The Followers of the path of Yoga or action hold out the following reply: even if we admit that this world is ephemeral, untrue, unreal, and unsubstantial, does it not For all practical purposes exist? Can you disprove its factual existence? How, then, can you altogether renounce work and action, or prevent yourself from being caughtup in the unending stream of activity? Hence, the true course available to us, in order to avoid the miseries ensuing from work and action, is not to try to escape from the world or to renounce the work or the action itself. But ‘we should renounce the desire, the craving, the longing for the result, the attachment with its consequences, the Feeling that ‘because I did this, I must get that or I must be rewarded.’

Both the paths of Sankhya as well as Yoga aim at a common objective, both want to avoid the miseries resulting from action. But whereas the former achieves this end by renouncing the work itself, the latter suggests renunciation only of the desire for its result.

The Gita accepts and upholds the path of Yoga, the path of desireless, disinterested action. Shri Krishna points out that this is the art of living, this is the secret handed down from Vivaswan  to Manu, the secret now being revealed by him to Arjuna. Krishna accepts the contention of the Sankhya school that action entails us into the miseries resulting therefront,” but questions at the same time the advisability of refraining from the performance of an act. He asks: how is it possible to renounce action? If this be an impossibility, why then should one propagate a doctrine which is impracticable? we must, it is inherent in our nature.”‘But at the same time it is equally true that we must try to avoid the miseries which result from our actions. Shri Krishna states that these miseries result not from the action itself, but from the attachment, from a feeling of frustration, from I-ness and my-ness, which is engrafted into any action performed with the lamp of expectations burning in front of us. When an act cannot be avoided even if We so desire, does it not logically follow that the only alternative available to us is to act and not to think of the result because this is never within our power?

lt is probable that at man when asked to give up the desire for the fruit of his action might give up the action itself‘. Shri Krishna clearly saw such a possibility. He visualized that people might become lethargic and work with no enthusiasm if they were told to treat success and failure alike. To dispel such a despondency he exhorts: ‘Arjuna! as the unwise act with attachment, so should the wise men, seeking maintenance of the world order, act but act without attachment.

The feeling of un-attachment should not result in any slackness or laxity in the tempo of our actions, otherwise what difference-would there be between the path of Yoga and the path of Sankhya’!

According to Shri Krishna. it tempoless action is no action, it is inaction. The consciousness that, howsoever one may wish, one cannot avoid the action should only goad a man onto act with double the enthusiasm. Desirelessness and unattachment are solely meant to eliminate the fever and the fret involved in an action.

Selfless Action is Not Impossible

It is often stated that the ideal of working without the desire for the fruit ‘thereof is one of the many things which are easier said than done Everyone is motivated to act with one aim or another in view. Is there , then, any way whereby we can overlook or ignore ye consequences of our actions and develop a detached outlook‘? According to Shri Krishna, this is possible if we begin to consider this life as a Yajnya or a sacrifice. He speaks out thus: ‘Man is bound by shackles of Karma only when engaged in actions other than the work performed for the sake of Yajnya (sacrifice). Therefore, O Arjuna! do you efficiently perform your duty, free from attachment, for the sake of sacrifice alone.Krishna further states: ‘The virtuous, who partake of what is left after their sacrifice, are absolved of all sins. Those sinful ones, who cook for the sake of nourishing their body alone, eat only sin.’

The Gita cxhorts us to treat life as a Yajnya or a sacrifice, a life free from all attachment and selfishness. Whistle  performing a sacrifice a man surrenders himself to the care of the Power Supreme.  The feeling at self surrender is: ‘I am nothing, Thou art everything; nothing is mine, everything is thine.’ This feeling of self-surrender is the essence of Yajnyn and when it envelops life, life becomes a living’”.Yajnya.

A ll the years from the cradle to the grave should be lived as a Yajnya, in a spirit of calm and tranquillity, making Brahma, Brahma, and only Brahma as both the subject and the object of all our doings. The prelude to any piece of work which is undertaken, be it a business venture, or a family duty, or a service to humanity, should be : ‘Acts are mine, but Lord, fruits are thine.’ Every action should be looked upon as an offering and the holy Brahma as the sacrificial fire into Whose unquenchable flames the seething oil of all our actions should be continuously poured. The thought provoking words of Krishna are: ‘Whatever you do, whatever you cat, whatever you oifer as oblation to the sacred fire, whatever you bestow as a gift, whatever you do by way of penance, offer it all to Me.’ 1

A man who leads such it life of self-surrender has been described in the Gita by the Words Atma-rata (Atma means self, rat means satisfied), Atma-tripta and Atma-santushta (self-satisfied, self-contented and self-possessed). A man leading quite the opposite type of life, that is, a life of licentiousness and indulgence, has been described as Indriyarata (Indriya means the senses, and rata means satisfied) or the one who seeks satisfaction in the enjoyment ofthe senses.

It is not something unusual or strange to consider life as a sacrifice and thus to live in an unattached way. Every  person has had such an experience at some time or the other in life. take the case of a doctor. He treats his patients with all the knowledge and experience at his command, and though many are cured none the less some die. But have you ever seen a doctor cry or weep for any of his unsucccssful cases? He is always unconcerned and unattached. He does his best to save the life of his patient and there his duty ends. He  acts and acts with the fullness of spirit but does not let the result over- power him. One would, however, see the same doctor unnerved and undone if his own child were to pass away. Of course, at that time the whole world would change for him. He would be filled  with grief, and would neither eat nor drink. He would lose total control over himself. He would now be weeping and wailing at the loss of his child, whereas he never shed at single tear when other children died under his treatment, Therefore, the question that arises is: why cannot he develop the same detached outlook for his own kith and kin which he has towards others?

Let us take another example. The husband of a lady dies. Friends and relatives come to console her and tell her that death must one day overtake us all, and that all this weeping and wailing will not avail in the least, nor will it bring back the dead to life again. But, heaven forbid, if any one of these visitors perehance meets the same title. she would not be able to Face up to the tragedy and there would he no consolation For her. She would find the loss of her husband in- tolerable and unendurable. When this very lady had expected a detached outlook in her friend, how is it that the some outlook could not be developed new by her own self?

If a businessman is robbed or loses his all, we try to console him. But when we ourselves are robbed, we cannot be soothed. What do all this mean’?

It  means, in simple words, that when our outlook is detached, we are serene, self-composed, and cheerful, but when this outlook is clouded with attachment and passions we tend to become restless,

anxious, and worried. The message of the Gila and the essence of Vedic culture is that one should live in the world and yet remain untouched by its soil‘,”one should work with a vigour but do so  in a spirit of self surrender  as if  nothing had been done, one should dip in the water and still keep one’s self undrenched and crisp like a lotus leaf, one should be enmeshed in the world of Maya but should be able to come out of it as the caterpillar’ sheds oft‘ and Worms its way out from its skin.

It is precisely with this idea of creating the inner calm well as peaceful surrounding for  all to live in and work that Krishna tells Arjuna that the greatest is he who ‘regards well-wishers, friends, foes, neutrals, mediators, the objects of hatred, relatives, virtuous and the sinful alike.“ If We try to follow this precept of detached outlook not only to the letter but also in spirit what an immense spiritual reservoir of perennial spring will be opened up for humanity  to quench its thirst for equality of treatment. Will it not lead to the establishment of a better moral order and will it not make world outlook analogous to that of Shri Krishna when he said, ‘I am equally present in all beings; there is none hateful or dear to Me. And think of the immense peace of mind the individual will capture when ‘he is alike to friend and Foe, and likewise to honour and ignominy, is alike to heat and cold, pleasure and pain and is free from attachment. This is the bliss promised by Krishna who loved Arjuna (all mankind) clearly, if only Arjuna would carry out the very core of his teachings»—Oh, son of Kunti, he thou equal unto all.

This outlook is one of treating life as a great Yajnya or a sacrifice.It is not attained by a life of selfishness, indulgence, and pining for the fruits of one’s actions. Shri Krishna whilst stressing on Arjuna to sacrifice all his actions to Him said: ‘Therefore always efficiently do your duty without attachment, doing work without attachment man attains the Supreme,’ “ and further continues, ‘Therefore, dedicating all actions to Me with your mind fixed on Me, the Self of all, freed from hope and feeling of attachment, cured of mental fever  fight.’

 Any work done with desire for its fruits is indeed a mental fever. When the result of some action does not turn out to be what we had desired, or worse still, when it turns out to he quite contrary to all expectations, we become restless, sad, and worried. The only way out is to work without desire. This is the secret teaching that Shri Krishna imparted to the bewildered Arjuna at the very moment he was turning his back to the world.

Why Should We Not I-lope for the Result?

Why should we not hope for the results of our actions? is it because we are afraid that  it does not turn out to be favourable we will be disappointed? And hence is this theory advocated merely to enable us to escape or to overcome this disappointment? There must be some philosophical ground, besides the practical   considerations, for the ideal of the renunciation of the desire for the results of your actions. What is this philosophical ground?

Renunciation of  desire does not mean that our actions will bear no fruit. Result must ensue from every act, though it may sometimes be favorable and at other times unfavorable. That is all. However, our happiness depends on the favourable and unhappiness on the unfavorable result of our notion. ‘But can we not realize that whereas we can exercise control over our actions, the results are obviously beyond the circumferences of the exercise of our powers‘? Here we cannot but recall Matthew Arnold’s lines, ‘success sways with the breath of Heaven. And though thou thinkest that thou knowest sure Thy victory, yet thou surely canst not know.’ Matthew Arnold further compares ourselves to swimmers in the sea, poised on the top of  huge Wave of fate, which he says, hangs uncertain which side to full. And whether it will heave us up to land or Whether it will roll us out to sea, we know not and no search can make us know; it is only the event which will teach us in its hour. Why then should we fret and fume over something which is beyonnd our control.

How vast is this universe ! A number of causes are responsible For a resultant effect. We can only know a few causes, we cannot and do not know all because our vision is limited. There is, however, some Supreme Power, operating in the universe, which keeps all these causes and effects in view and strikes a balance among them all. This power may be described as the Synthetic Power. It is this power alone that knows the reasons for, as well as the extent to which, something that may be good for us may be bud for others and vice versa, and hence constantly operates to adjust the good and the bad of each. one of us in the context of the larger interests of humanity.

When we do not know as to whether the fulfilment of our particular desire will be good or bad in the context of the divine purpose,we are left only with the sole alternative to act with the best of our intentions and dedicate the results to the Will Supreme. We should try to learn to see things in the larger context and not think from the narrow personal angle. It was to express this truth that Shri Krishna revealed to Arjuna what is known as the Divine Form.

Revelation of the Divine Form

The Gita states that Shri Krishna assumed a Divine Form to enable  Arjuna to behold Bhishma, Drona, and Kama with the principal warriors on their sides rushing headlong into His fearful mouth which was set with terrible teeth, and getting caught between them (teeth) with their heads crushed. All this had a symbolic meaning. The revelation of the Divine Form by Shri Krishna aimed at showing, in operation, the Synthetic Power which works in the world to reconcile all the contradictions that perturb the doubting mind. The manifestation of Shri Krishna’s universal form in which the operation of the law of cause and effect was unfolded to the mental eye of Arjuna set all his vacillations at rest.

Shri Krishna said about this form: ‘Arjuna! behold presently in hundreds and thousands My multifarious divine forms, of diverse colours and different shadesl“ Who can consider himself alone to be the centre of the universe after knowing that thousands of causes are operating in the determination of an effect without our being aware of them? Arjuna also realized, on seeing the Divine Form, that even the mighty men like Bhishma and Drona were not free from the dispensation of Divine justice; even they were being ground like grist under His teeth. The narrow vision of Arjuna turned into a wide perspective. His apprehensions about the sin of killing his kith and kin disappeared in a moment. He now realized that those, whom he was called upon to fight with, had already been slain by their Karmas in the scheme of the Divine, and that he was only being made an instrument of that Will; he was only the chisel that would cut the rock, as the Sculptor would direct it. It was thus that Shri Krishna said: ‘I am the inflamed Kala (time), the destroyer of the worlds. My purpose here is to destroy these people. Even without you all those warriors arrayed in the enemy’s camp will not survive.”

This was the teaching that turned the cowardice of Arjuna into valour, this was the lesson which made him face the world instead of turning his back to it. He began to feel that though he was Working, it was as if no work was being done by him. The Gita states whilst describing this state of the mind: ‘He Whose under- takings are all free from desire and thoughts of the world, and whose actions are burnt up by the fire  of wisdom, him even the wise call a sage.“ Thus did Mahatma Gandhi say: ‘Thoughts accrue automatically to him who duly performs his duties. In fact, the right to perform one’s duties is the only right that is worth living for and dying for. It covers all legitimate rights.’

Shri Krishna was not a mere charioteer, he was a spiritual guide. We all face problems similar to those of Arjuna. The very idea of war disturbed and agitated Arjuna. What will be the result of this war? Shall I lose or shall I win? Should I fight with those whom I called my own? These were the questions Arjuna had to solve. He found his answers through the immortal secret of disinterested, desireless action.Even today the teachings of Shri Krishna, which infused new life into Arjuna, hold good for us though centuries have rolled by. And for all time to come, Shri Krishna seems to be exhorting the Arjunas of all generations to enlarge their vision, to give up all the doubts and hesitations in the performance of their duties and to do everything in a spirit of sacrifice, for Nishkama Karma or disinterested action is only another name for sacrifice and self-surrender to the Will Divine. The teachings of the Gita, proclaiming to the world the secret gospel of disinterested action, will survive till the sun and the moon continue to shed their lights on the globe and will never die.

VEDIC CULTURE AND THE CONFLICTING IDEOLOGIES

By Dr Satyavrat Siddhantalankar

THE hottest and the reddest lava which the volcano of modern ideas is continuously belching forth through its crater is: that and that alone is real which is visible, whilst that which cannot be seen is unreal and thus, it is the visible or the real which is the problem and the sole issue which demands our attention. A look at ourselves reveals the body of flesh and blood, and a scrutiny into the universe brings before our vision the five elements, namely, the earth, the water, the fire, the air, and the sky. Nothing is visible beyond. Hence it is held that the only real thing with regard to ourselves is the body, and that the only reality in nature is the physical world of matter.

These facts have come to occupy such a prominent place in the  modern scale of values that it is contended that only when a person has got complete control over the things of bodily comfort as well as the forces of nature that he can be said to have solved his life’s enigma. Naturally the question arises: how does one obtain these bodily comforts as well as the treasures stored in nature? The answer pouring forth from the crater of modern civilization is that this is possible only through the assessment of wealth which can purchase all that which we need and even that Which we do not need. These powerful thoughts have for the past few centuries been forcefully moulding all human endeavours in the various parts of the globe. They have given rise to many isms and theories.

Time was when the only way to amass wealth was to rob those who had it in plenty. Persons resorting to this method were and are called thieves, robbers, and dacoits. But even kings and sovereigns had been availing themselves of the same method without ever being termed as such; Alexander the Great, Mahmood Gazanvi, Napoleon, all of them were motivated by the same ambition to accumulate wealth and set out to attack, plunder, and loot other countries. Once a dacoit was produced before a king for the heinous crime of loot. ‘My Lord,’ said the dacoit, ‘I see no difference between yourself and myself except that you commit on a larger scale the deeds I do on a scale much smaller. Big dacoits are called kings.’ The dacoit was right.

Then came a time in social evolution when this method of accumulating riches by force gave way to another means for obtaining them which was termed as business. This method was considered to be more refined, cultured and reasonable. In this new era u number of factories sprang up and new ways of generating wealth were discovered.

The discovery of  many a new territory and kingdom led to the expansion of business. Was not Africa at mere stretch of forests lying neglected as barren land before the English arrived there and settled down only to exploit its resources in terms of men and money? Indian labourers were recruited and sent to Africa by force, and it is through the hire of their services for paltry pennies that the Englishman became a multi-millionaire. It was essentially for business that the British through the East India Company first landed in India. The moment they realised that their continuance would no longer be serviceable to their interests, they decided to quit the country.

Capitalism

The decades of Alexander and Napoleon coupled with periods in history which are noteworthy for the accumulation of wealth through business are known as the eras of Capitalism. The setting out of kings and sovereigns with their armies to subjugate other countries and the landings of the English and other European nations in foreign territories under the banners of business to seek wealth through exploitation are the outcome of the capitalistic mode of thought and behaviour. Both wanted money, money at any cost; the kings by the use of force, and the traders through devious methods of exploitation. They wanted to accumulate and accumulate as much as possible. But does this amassing of wealth create a feeling of lasting satisfaction? If one is in want, one desires to have enough; but if one has got enough, one tends to crave for enough and to spare for hoarding.

Man is man; he covets and compares. It is natural for him to become dissatisfied with his own lot as soon as he sees and realizes that others are comparatively richer, better clothed, better fed, and better housed. When even the haves are not satisfied, how can the have-nots be? How is it possible for the poor cook, who prepares sumptuous dishes for us, to take only rotten meals himself and yet not rebel? How long will the weaver who knits the silken threads for our shirts remain contented with rags? It is incredible that a labourer who has built a palace for us must shiver in the cold in an adjoining hutment and yet not turn hostile.

Reaction against Capitalism and Economic Inequalities: theirProducts, Socialism and Communism

In a purely capitalistic set up, the labourer works and sweats, whereas the owner does nothing. If the capitalist earns a profit of Rs. 20, he gets rid of the worker by paying him Rs. 2, and keeps and enjoys the balance himself. The plea put up by the owner is that it is he who had invested his moneys and must therefore get a return. But actually Rs. 20 were earned not by mere investment but also by the blood and sweat of the labourer. Even it‘ some moneys were invested could they have yielded such a high return in the absence of labour? ls it, therefore, reasonable to give the worker only a pittance of Rs. 2 against the huge profit of Rs. 20 ‘2 Is it unnatural for the labourer to rebel against the capitalistic order of society sanctioning such a dispensation?

Thus we see that on the one hand stands the capitalist and on the other hand opposing him stands the labourer. The employee is becoming more and more conscious of the gulf separating him from his employer, and this awakening has led to many problems. In the sphere of domestic life, for example, it is now becoming more and more difficult to get as well as to maintain a servant. The situation will deteriorate still further because domestic servants, like the rest of labour, have started demanding higher wages. The demands of labour as a Whole are increasing. Ordinary peons in good concerns are now getting the same salaries as clerks used to get previously. The demand for the enforcement of the economic concept of the reduction in the inequalities of wealth and income between man and man is gathering momentum.

This problem of the disparity between the rich and the poor has become universal, and Socialism as well as Communism claim to solve it. These isms maintain that this problem of bridging the gulf between the rich and the poor can only be solved through the state regulation that work must be taken from everyone according to his capacity and each should be remunerated according to his needs. It is perfectly possible that certain individuals will and must earn more because individual capacities very, but the fact to be borne in mind here is that there must be equality of opportunity and secondary as well as higher education must be provided for all to eliminate the factor of capacity which perpetuates inequality. The welfare of society depends on the concept that all its members have sufficient resources to meet their requirements adequately.

Because of this rationalistic mass approach Socialism and Communism are having their sway in the modern world. What is the position in China? What took place in Korea‘? Why was the Prime Minister of Iran, Razmara, killed? Why was the coup staged in Pakistan‘? What happened in Telangana in India‘? What else are these if not reactions against Capitalism? Both Socialism and Communism are constantly engaged in a duel against Capitalism, and neither of them is prepared to leave the wrestling ground. The only difference between Communism and Socialism is that while the former proposes to bring about the desired changes through revolutionary methods, the latter opts for going slow as well as for adopting peaceful means to achieve its ends.

But we need not go into the origin, development, and other subtleties of Socialism and Communism. It is sufficient here to note that both of them aim at bridging the gulf between the rich and the poor, both are opposed to Capitalism and aim at a more equitable distribution of wealth.

Time was when Socialism and Communism were unheard of in practical life, and these terms were only to he read in books on Economics. Capitalism, which was at its zenith at that time, has now been shattered to pieces. Even‘ the capitalist countries have started pointing the footsteps of their policies in the direction of Socialism. This preference of Socialism to Capitalism may be attributed to the terrors created by the latter. And it is precisely to avoid both the harshness of Communism as well as the exploitative ills of Capitalism that Socialism is being ushered in all over the world. Socialism is being adopted voluntarily lest Communism with all its naked violence may show its teeth. It has become an established fact as well as a rule and law of commonsense that no political stability can be guaranteed so long as economic stability and prosperity are not assured. This accounts for Socialism and in cases even for Communism gaining an upper hand against Capitalism in social and political reconstruction.

And this is precisely what is happening in India today; the wind of Socialism is blowing all over the country. Let some socialists allege, if they choose to do so, that India is being governed by capitalists, but what confronts us is something entirely different. Old values are giving place to new ones. Rajas and Maharajas have been forced to shed off their former glitters. Though they reigned over different parts of the country for several centuries, they were deprived of their political powers overnight with a. single stroke. The Zamindari system has also come to an end. Transport enterprises are being brought within the purview of the public sector in large number of states. Cooperative societies are springing up everywhere. The profits so far earned  and enjoyed by the business community are now being monopolized by the government. The underlying aim or objective is to discourage the concentration of wealth in the few hands who make use of it for their personal pleasure and to ensure that its surges lush against every home. So we are laying the foundation of  welfare state which may re-invest all the profits of the public sector in the ameliorative activities of the community.

Capitalism in the modern age has become as much a theoretical concept its Socialism and Communism once were. Even the capitalists themselves feel diffident in lending their support to it in its original form and hence they too prefer to use the terminology of Socialism. This struggle of ideologies which is constantly being staged before us will definitely result in the total extinction of Capitalism and removal of man-created barriers between the rich and the poor. But none can tell whether this change will be brought about by power struggle, by violence and hatred, through Communism or through Socialism, or by the use of some totally deferent means. It is difficult to predict which ism will usher in this era of perfect equality, but the present trend clearly indicates that economic inequality cannot survive any longer. And, what is the position about social inequality‘?

Social Inequality

The annals of history indicate that white races have in the past entertained the wrong notion of superiority over the colored races and felt that there was something lacking in the latter. This feeling of racial superiority was one of the reasons for many of the Asian countries having been deprived of their independence for centuries.

But, if one were to take the present overall picture into account, it could be said that racial inequalities are gradually disappearing. It is no doubt true that the inhabitants of South Africa do not still enjoy the same rights as the white men there do, but it is impossible to justify this code of conduct in the modern age. Of course, at one point of time this sort of unequal social treatment was considered to be natural as well as very much in vogue.

Let us consider the case of our own country. Only n few years ago the fortress of untouchability was considered impregnable and even to touch men and women of 21 certain caste or community was deemed to be a  sin. But how long could such a sorry state of affairs survive? Un touch ability was made an offence after independence under the constitution. It is only the last flickers of  untouchability which are now awaiting to be extinguished.

And what is the position about women? Even in Europe, it was once held that women had no soul, and that the soul was an exclusive gift of God bestowed upon man. Today in all the European countries women enjoy equal rights with men, and a similar emancipation of women has also taken place in India. Are not these social changes signs of the coming times when there will be no man-made barriers between man and man and complete social equality will prevail? It is clearly writ large on the wall that the time has come when there will not be even one in this wide world who could be said to have no food to fill his belly, no shelter to lay his head, no means to educate his children. The economic inequalities must vanish as surely as the social inequalities have disappeared and the balance of which are surely on the wane today. The main problem of man in the present set up is more economic than social because social inequalities are invariably the outcome of economic inequalities.

Economic Problem is Man’s First but Not the Last Problem

It is self-evident that the coming era will not be an era of Capitalism, rather it will be one of Socialism or of Communism or any other ism which may emerge more powerful than the others. But the question of all questions is: will this put an end to the conflicts now going on among the different isms and ideologies? The answer is emphatically in the negative. In fact, there.is no difference between the problems dealt with in Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism, because they all have their origin in materialism. They may appear on the surface to hold enmity against one another, but in reality they present the same out- look, in so far as all of them keep the monetary wick flickering before them. They maintain that a man’s economic problem is his only problem and that it is towards the solution of this issue that a man should divert all his energies.

As against this conception, Vedic culture opines that even after a man’s economic problem is solved, his basic yearning still remains a quest. What is this basic quest or problem? The basic problem of man is that his needs do not end at the physical level, he cannot get peace merely by satisfying his hunger or quenching his thirst. He also craves, hungers, and thirsts for the higher things of life.

This visible human form is only an expansion of the spiritual principle lurking behind this body; and whatever is visible in the world form is merely the expansion of the self-same principle operating behind the world of matter. We are not Sharira but Alma; the real power motivating this universe is not Prakriti but Parama Atman. Thus Vedic culture presents men’s problems in an altogether new and different perspective. Man’s real search is not of the body but of Atma, not of the world of matter but of the spiritual principle from which all this emanates and has its being. In the light of the judgment of the Vedic seers, Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism would try to solve the human problem only on an animal level. They would see man only as the body and take no note of his spiritual nature, because according to them, this element does not exist at all.

Spiritual Nature of Man

However, the truth is that in spite of these world-wide attempts to satisfy our bodily and sensual needs, despite wars, murders, and dacoities raging all over the globe for man to fulfil his ambition, regardless of nature looking red in tooth and claw, we are, all of us, at some time or the other, motivated by certain higher impulses. These cannot be said to be material but they go to form the spiritual element in the individual. Is there any amongst us, who would not, for example at some point of time, think of sacrificing his life to save the life of a close relation from some imminent danger or of giving his own blood to save the life of one who is the nearest and the dearest to his heart by brushing aside his own personal considerations‘? How is this possible if economics and money were the two last words in human affairs and social relations? Is it not a fact that a man who sacrifices his life for the welfare of others becomes the idol and the hero for thousands of his admirers through the centuries? Do we not reverence Buddha, Christ, Dayanand, and Gandhi because they renounced the world and sacrificed themselves for the sake of humanity? What does all this mean? Does it not mean that though we are engaged in the accumulation of wealth and enjoyment of worldly objects yet deep within ourselves we still regard its renunciation and sell’-sacrifice I” or some higher aim far nobler and worth aspiring to‘? In this context let us recall the words that Dickens makes Sidney Carton speak when the latter is guillotined of his own accord because he wishes to save the life of Darncy, husband of Lucy Manette, his beloved: ‘It is u fur, fur better thing that [ do, than I have ever done; it‘s a fur, tar better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.’ Is it not an enigma that despite our constantly harping upon the slogans of world peace and universal brotherhood, restlessness, hatred, and violence are rampant everywhere‘? Why is it that though love, harmony, service, sacrifice, self-surrender are the eternal and fundamental principles of the universe, they are being discarded in the modern world?

It is the rocks of the materialistic theories of Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism which stand in the way and block the advancement of the surging waves of world peace and universal brother- hood. But as wave upon wave of these eternal spiritual Verities of truth, love, harmony, sacrifice, non-violence break upon the mountainous rocks of these materialistic isms and are forced to turn back leaving room for these isms to hold their momentary sway, they do so only to gather greater strength, vigor, and momentum with which to lash forth in future. These materialistic theories have imprisoned us so firmly within their four walls that we cannot have a glimpse of anything beyond this body and its needs. And similar to the prisoner who yearns for fresh air and a peep into the outside world we also pine to uphold and assimilate in life these principles. But like him we find ourselves helpless to do so until and unless we can successfully break open the dungeon bars and come out into the open. Nevertheless we cannot but talk about these principles because they hold us fast and howsoever we may wish We cannot escape from their grip. Why is this so? This is so because these principles alone are true, they alone are real, and cannot but help influencing even an outright materialist or a hard atheist. The reason why materialists admire these principles only by word of mouth and not through  practice, is that though the spiritualism as conceived by the Vedic seers does not renounce materialism, yet materialism does not so readily make a compromise with spiritualism. And living as we are in a materialistic age, all our efforts at spiritualizing materialism are resisted Whereas those at materializing spiritualism are encouraged.

It is thus clear that these high ideals of love, sacrifice, and benevolence can exist only if our outlook is spiritual; they cannot be kept alive if we view the world as reflected through the capitalistic, the socialistic, or the communistic mirrors. If Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism can help us only in removing hunger and thirst and if these urges are not the only needs of man, then they can ill provide us with a lasting solution to our problems. They solve only a part of our question, only a fragment of our difficulties. Spiritually speaking, these ideologies could hold a permanent footing in the minds of men only if they could give a local habitation and a name to those far of, glowing, glittering, eternal verities.

These are passing through the ordeals of labour, essentially to be horn into the World and there- by to bring about its transformation from the world of violence, untruth, stealth, indulgence, and attachment into a world of non- violence, truth, non-possession, self-control, and non-attachment. These alone are the eternal, these alone are the universal. Thus does the Epistle to the Philippians read: ‘Whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue and if there be any praise, think on these things.’ But no, the prevailing economic theories do not offer a lasting solution to the Whole of man. ‘Thou shalt not live by bread alone’ depicts the crux of the problem. There is no denying that hunger and thirst are very important urges for which due consideration is absolutely necessary. But the fact still remains that Whereas materialism confines its scope to merely providing man with his physical necessities and comforts, Vedic spiritualism goes a step further and embraces man and his needs as a whole. Outlook of Vedic Culture

According to Vedic culture, the body exists but it is the beginning and not the end of human existence; the satisfaction of our bodily needs is and no doubt should be our goal but not our final goal in life. Vedic culture does not teach us to ignore the body or to shut our eyes to the economic aspect of life. The body is real, it is in  fact so real that it has even hidden within itself its spiritual principle. How, then, can we neglect the body ? How is it possible that the saints and sages who prayed for the span of a hundred years of life could afford to neglect or hate or abhor the body‘!

Vedic culture pays its tribute to all those ideologies which aim at solving the problem of hunger and thirst. and its preference must naturally go to the one which deals with this problem the most efficiently. It only emphasizes that alter having fulfilled their mission of removing hunger and thirst these ideologies must recede into the background, and that they should not keep us in their shackles after they have outlived their utility. In other words, in the panorama of human existence it is the spiritual mountain which should stand out against the skyline as towering over the hill of materialism, and man must remember that after climbing the material mount the spiritual ascent still remains. It is essentially at the point at which materialism ends its task that spiritualism begins its own. Both materialism as well as spiritualism singly by themselves cannot render any useful service to humanity. One-sidelines is not and cannot be the truth of existence. Does not Christ say: ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.’

Vedic culture does not ignore materialism because it regards the body as at means for the realization of its destiny by the soul and Prakriti (matter) as an instrument to be used for the fulfilment of its mission in life. The message of Vedic culture enshrined in the teachings of the Rishis of old is that we should start with Sharira  (the body) and its needs but not end with it; we should begin with Prakriti (matter) and its products but not make it our final goal.

THE CENTRAL THOUGHT OF VEDIC CULTURE

 By Dr. Satyavrat Siddhantalankar

 INDIA has achieved independence after years of foreign domination. We have so far followed the path shown to us by others, but are now free to chart out our course and shape our own destiny. What will be this course? This is for time alone to tell. It is, however, possible to indicate on the basis of our traditional thought and literature, the path that we had followed and the direction of our movement for thousands of years before we lost our moorings.

It is the firm belief of those who are acquainted with the essentials of Vedic culture that the welfare of India. as well as of mankind at large demands the perusal of the same old path shown to us centuries ago by our saints and sages. If this is done India will again become the torch bearer and the crown of the world, as she once was, shining forth in all her radiant and pristine glory. But what was this path? How can we know it‘? In order to be able to understand the way of this path we shall have to discover the central thought of Vedic culture.

Our country in the prime of her youth had given birth to a culture which was and still is different from the other cultures of the world. There was a time when the open air of the forests, the shady trees, and the verdure all around, pregnant with subdued silence, occupied the same pride of place as that which the crowded and the noisy towns studded with skyscrapers hold in the modern age. The culture which than developed was one of those who were constantly in communion with nature in all its variegated hues and resplendent glory. The talk of the day would be that ‘this Rishi lives in the Dandakaranya,’ or ‘that Rishi lives in Brihadaranya.’ Dandakaranya and Brihadaranya were the names of the forest habitations of the Rishis of old. There were, no doubt, towns and cities in the Vedic age, but the forests were regarded as the centres of culture from which inspiration radiated in all directions. The cities were encircled by these forests in which the saints lived. ‘They lived in their forest hutments and devoted their time to meditation and communion with the Spirit Supreme.

We shall have occasion to discuss this culture of the forests in the course of the present work, but since there are some who feel different in using the term ‘culture’ for a culture evolved by the forest- saints of old, it is but appropriate to clearly understand the difference between ‘Culture’ and ‘Civilization.’

Civilization is Material but Culture is Spiritual

Civilization and culture are fundamentally distinct from each other; the two can be said to be poles apart. Civilization refers to the body, culture to the soul; civilization is external, culture internal; civilization can be said to be the name given to material progress, culture relates to spiritual advancement. Railways, telegraphs, radios, cars, aeroplanes, ships are the emblems of civilization; non-violence, truth, contentment, sell‘-control, and self- abnegation are the symbols of culture.

Let it, however, be noted that the concept of culture differs from country to country, and different cultures attach various shades of importance to the basic principles such as non-violence, truth,

Contentment, self-control, etc. There is also a possibility of the existence of certain cultures which may have violence, Falsehood, discontent, licentiousness as their fundamentals. The latter, however, should be excluded from the sphere of cultures. It is natural that a culture propounded by those who have devoted their lives to the pursuit of non-violence, truth, non-stealing, sell‘-control, and non-attachment will differ from the one propounded by others who indulge in violence, falsehood, stealing, licentiousness and aggrandizement. Whilst the first type of culture is a sublime culture, the second one, though technically called a culture, is a vulgar culture and hence in discussions on this subject it should be designated by some term other than culture.

Civilization, on the other hand, has nothing to do with these pairs of opposite qualities, such as, violence and non-violence, truth and untruth, stealing and non-stealing, self-control and liceutiousuess, aggrendisement and self-abnegation. A man may be said to be civilized if he is fairly comfortably off‘ and has a bungalow,s car, a refrigerator, a tape recorder, two to three servants, irrespective of what he is in his personal life. It does not matter even if he be a liar, a drunkard, or a libertine, he is none the less without dispute a civilized man. But can he be called a cultured man.  If he claims to have any culture, it can only be a negation of culture for such a man gives preference to violence over non-violence (Ahimsa), to falsehood over truth (Satya), to stealing over non- stealing (Asreya), to licentiousness over self-control (Brahmccharya), and to aggrandizement over self-abnegation (Aparigraha).

The culture which is based on violence, falsehood, discontentinent, licentiousness, and aggrandizement is not a culture; in fact, it is a negation of the very elements that go to constitute the concept of

culture. And so it is that a civilized man can be most uncultured, as well as a cultured man can be most uncivilized. Both the terms can be used exclusively of each other.

Civilization is material, it depends upon outward or physical, material things; culture is spiritual, it has its roots in the inner life, the life of the spirit.

Rishi Vishwamitra lived in huts made of leaves, of grass, and of creepers. Rishi Vasishtha covered his body with pieces of skin and hides or untanned leather. Shri Krishna used only a chariot that was drawn by horses. Where do these great men of old stand, judged strictly from the norm of civilization or from the standards of the modern man who lives in apartments, wears terelene shirts and trousers, smokes cigars, and travels by aeroplanes? But viewed from the perspective of even the highest standards of culture they remain unequalled because they devoted themselves to self-perfection, to the cultivation of man as man, and to the welfare of humanity at large.

Civilization and Culture can Exist both Jointly as well as Severally

It is possible that a nation might be at the zenith of its material achievements and its people might also be non-violent, unaggressive, truthful, contented, pure, chaste, and ungreedy. This is ideal, and under such circumstances both the culture as well as the civilization of the nation can be said to be of a high standard.

It is also possible that a nation might be materially matured but spiritually a babe. In such a case cars will be in abundance but they might be used for dacoit, radios will be in plenty but only vulgar songs will be relayed over them. Obviously the civilization of such a nation will be high but its culture definitely low.

It is perfectly possible that a nation might be at the lowest rung of the ladder of material progress but may be standing on the highest pinnacle of spirituality. The people of such a nation will be sharing the grief’s of others, sacrificing their own interests for the welfare of their neighbors, and leading a life completely free from falsehood, dishonesty, corruption, etc.; and yet they might travel by bullock carts instead of cars, live in huts instead of bungalows. A nation of such persons might be regarded backward with respect to civilization but will be reverenced as the fountainhead  of culture. All nations will bow to her for her cultural supremacy.

Which of these two can be said to be occupying the higher place, civilization or culture? The answer is that the scales tilt in favor of culture, because it has its foundation in non-violence, love, truth, honesty, contentment, self-control, non-aggrandizement, and self- abnegation. The world today is not so much in need of the railways, the telegraphs and the radios as it is in need of non-violence, brotherhood, truth, honesty, self-control, benevolence, and non-attachment. It is better for a nation to have both, civilization as well as culture, but if a choice has to be made between the two, the vacillating needle of the compass must point towards culture. This is what Franklin Roosevelt meant when he stated: ‘In order that civilization might survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships.’

Civilization can be sacrificed to safeguard culture but culture cannot be placed at the altar of civilization. Body can be sacrificed to save the soul, not the soul to save the body.

Culture is Born out of a Central Dominant Idea

We have seen the difference between culture and civilization. We have also explained the true significance of culture. But how is a culture born.  Any culture must have its origin in the central or dominant idea or thought of a community, the concept around which the whole of its life revolves, the polar star in the constellation of its thoughts. All the currents and cross currents in the life of a community are guided and inspired by this central thought. Any community devoid of such a central thought has no culture worth the name, a community with no central thought to guide it as a beacon-light in its onward march to the promised land becomes one amongst the many. This central thought is to any culture what the soul is to the body; and just as the soul is responsible for the life in the body, so also this thought is responsible for the dynamism in the culture. The strength or the weakness of a culture will and must ultimately depend on the force or sub-duedness of this central thought. The more powerful the central thought, the more vigorous and animating will be the culture emanating from it.

Various cultures, not in multiples of one but thousands, have come and vanished from the earth. What was the reason for this? This was so because either they had no central thought to guide them, or if they had any, it gradually weakened itself and hence could not sustain them. The cultures of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon were thus annihilated in the absence of any single dominant and vigorous central thought. They died their natural death because there was nothing to keep them alive. These nations still exist but the thought which had given them birth, the idea which had made them what they were centuries ago, is no more. There they stand like the body without the soul, lifeless, and to use Shelley’s words: ‘Nothing beside remains: round the decay Of that colossal wreck, bound- less and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away.’

A community which has no such central thought for which it lives and dies will bow even before those whom it has vanquished, if this other community has a powerful central thought to guide it.

A nation which has such a central thought to sustain it will not bow before a conqueror even in the event of defeat.

India remained under the yoke of foreign rule for centuries. Could it affect her soul? No, never; because it was only the body and not the soul of India which had accepted the domination. Why was this so ? It was so because there was some dynamic and vigorous thought inspiring the Indian culture which could not be brushed aside, nor crushed, nor covered up totally with a. dab of the fresh paint of domination.

The Central Thought of Vedic Culture

This brings us to the question: what was this central thought‘! The central thought or concept of this nation had been sung in Vedic hymns by the saints and sages of this land, taught by the Munis in the Upanishads, and propounded by Shri Krishna in the Bhagawad Gita.

According to this thought, macrocosmically, Prakriti (matter)’ exists but it is not all; there is some spiritual reality behind it which animates it and is called Parama Atma tattva (world consciousness) or the universal life principle. Microcosmically, Sharira (body) is also a reality but not the ultimate reality because even here there is the Atma tattva animating the body which is known as Jivatma or Pururha (human consciousness) or the individual life principle.

The World is an inter-play of the forces of Prakriri and Purusha or Jivatma. If the existence of Prakriti be reality, the enjoyment of all its lovely objects is also natural and inevitable. But according to Vedic culture the fact that we have to enjoy this world is as much true as the other fact that we have to say ‘good-bye’ to it some day.

According to Indian thought Prakriti is dominated by Parama Atma and Sharira is subordinate to Jivatmn. Jivarma or Purusha has to march towards the achievement of the Paramta through this body, or it has to reach that which it has not attain as yet. This in brief, is the gist of the central thought of Indin phylosopy.

Regardless of the philosophy which claims our allegiance , he it monism, dualism, pantheism, theism, or atheism, the thought running all along Indian culture is that since every one has to leave this world some day, passionate attachment to the pleasures it provides cannot be the be-all and the end-all human existence. There is pleasure in the enjoyment of worldly objects, but certainly no lusting satisfaction in an attachment to them.

Who does not seek pleasure? All are after pleasure from the rank atheist to a devoted theist, but the crux of the matter is that pleasure is pleasure only when we enjoy the world and after enjoyment renounce it. The moment we lose ourselves in attachment the pet of pleasure converts itself into a carnivorous monster and quietly slips out of our hands confronting us to devour us into its entrails.

The process that brings real happiness in life is that of ‘Enjoyment -Non-attachment–Renunciation.’ The Upanishad declares: Thus and thus alone—-—by the method of ‘Enjoyment ~ Renunciation’—-canst thou disentangle thyself from the meshes of Karma. If the ultimate reality is not of this ephemeral world but of the world beyond, then the only path to be pursued here is to lead an unattael1ed selfless life of action, and to surrender the fruits thereof to the Will Supreme.

This central thought of Vedic philosophy, if properly understood, is not an ideology of despair or escapism. It does not imply complete renunciation or running away into the jungle. Indian culture is realistic, in so far as it holds out its fullest recognition to the existence of this real and visible world, as well as acknowledges its irresistible power of attraction. Vedic culture believes that the various objects of this world have been created for our enjoyment, it does not teach us to run away from them or to close our eyes to them. It only warns us against excessive indulgence in them. The sum and  substance of this culture is to enjoy the World but not to lose oneself in it, to live like a drop of water on the lotus flower which rests on it with all the splendors of a diamond without drenching it.

Some cultures preach the gospel of renunciation whilst others of enjoyment, some of materialism and still others of spiritualism. But it is the harmonious blending of all the conflicting ideologies and thoughts which distinguishes Vedic culture from the others. It is realistic because it views the world as being both a reality as well as an unreality. And is it not a fact that the world is both, real and also unreal? it is real in so far as it is tangible and perceptible; it is unreal because it is not everlasting. It was on the basis of this dual nature of the world, embracing both its reality as also its un reality, that Vedic culture had developed a philosophy of its own, styled as ‘Enjoyment-Renunciation’ in which materialism was wedded to spiritualism. And it is precisely this harmonious blending of apparently conflicting thoughts and ideologies that makes this culture great and unique.

As has already been mentioned earlier every great culture of the world is the outcome of some central thought, and for a culture to survive, its central thought must be potent, vigorous, and continuous. It is the potency coupled with the vigor of this central concept that determines the continuity of a culture. The rock of any culture can resist the surges and billows of time only if this central thought is so potent, so vigorous, so continuous that it is the very life breath of the community through all its ups and downs, and that the community lives and dies for it. It is only then that a. culture can be said to hold its own. Into a community which can thus keep its central thought alive are born persons who symbolize this thought, who are its living embodiments; and to ensure this, it is necessary to animate and strengthen the central thought through constant endeavor.

The central idea of Vedic culture has been continuously influencing the life of our community. During all the periods of trials and tribulations, that we have passed through, this central thought has always guided and inspired our nation like a polar star.

Time was when we built our social structure on the foundation of this central thought. Time was when we also initiated the whole world into the light of this central thought of our culture and were hailed as leaders and pioneers in the comity of nations.

But we had also to pass through a darkened era in our history when  we were sent into oblivion and were thrown into the dustbin of nations. During this period of darkness our culture like 21 fire smoldering under the ashes continued to be enclosed in its own hushed light. It was not destroyed. How could it be destroyed? It had once again to flare up into a flame to remove the darkness of the world and lead aright the humanity that had gone astray.

The Vedic saints have declared: Satyam, Sivam, Sumdaram. The formula signifies that truth, blissfulness, and beauty arc eternal verities of cosmic existence, undestroyed and un -destroyable. Keats echoed the same truth when he sung: ‘A thing of beauty is it joy for ever.’ True beauty and loveliness can neither fade nor wither into nothingness, they shine with further and further lustre with the dawn of every new day. Keats’ reference is not confined to the beauty and loveliness of physical objects or treasures of art. He along with Vedic seers voices forth the eternal truth of the imperishable nature of the basic principles of culture which are embodied in the formula of ‘Enjoyment—Non Attachment—-Renunciation’ as propounded by the Upanishads and the Gita. This formula has stood the test of time, the ravages of fortune and has enabled our people to shoulder the cross of evil and bitter days, as well as has held its own against the conflicting ideologies that have penetrated into the soil of India.

Today the task we are faced with is to rebuild our nation in accordance with the philosophy contained in our cultural thought and also to carry its message to every nook and corner of the earth. The time is ripe when we and our culture will be put to an acid test. Does the central thought of our culture contain the potency, the vigour, the continuity, the three essentials of dynamism needed to build our society and the world around or does it not? Upon a positive answer to this question hangs the future of this culture! Matthew Arnold has said, ‘culture is n study of perfection’ and elucidating it further continues that the best motto in which culture can be described is: ‘to make reason and the will of God prevail.’

It is the extent to which the central thought as well as the other aspects of our culture can rightly conform to these observations that will now be the theme of this book.