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.