CHAPTER VII SOME RELEVANT IMPLICATIONS

Transcription

1 CHAPTER VII SOME RELEVANT IMPLICATIONS

2 I. POSIT A METAPURUSHARTHA? 1. Introduction We have seen that the fourfold scheme of purusharthas gives us a normative orientation to life. We also found that the four purusharthas involve each other and that they in their interrelationship form one single goal. But now the question is: Is it the ultimate goal? Are the purusharthas ultimate in the sense that there is nothing beyond for us to look forward to? 2. Why Posit a Metapurushartha? This question is an important one. For, dharma is regarded as the ultimate goal by some groups like the Buddhists; People like Kautilya has argued that artha is the ultimate goal; according to the Tantric way of looking at things, kama is to be considered as the ultimate goal; and for many others of our religious and philosophical traditions, moksha is the ultimate goal. Given the logic of syadvada, the Jaina theory that every judgment is relative, each of these positions could conditionally be justified. This is best illustrated by the story which the Jainas have contributed to the world of literature. It is the story of the blind men who formed their ideas of an elephant by touching its legs, ears, tail and trunk respectively and thus came to a quarrel regarding the real shape of the animal. If each of the purusharthas can be regarded as ultimate, though conditionally, then none of them is really the ultimate goal. Nor can all of them together be the ultimate, though they together in their interrelationship might be thought of as the

3 single ultimate goal. For, all four of them often than not point to something else which must in fact be regarded as the ultimate goal. 3. The Ultimate Goal? What is that ultimate goal to which all the four purusharthas are directed? One contention is that Samodaya or lokasamgraha is that ultimate goal. All the so-called purusharthas are oriented towards it and thus it is to be regarded as the meta-purushartha. Here, of course, we do not rule out the possibility of including this goal of sarvodaga in that of dharma. We have already shown that the four purusharthas are interrelated in such a way that they together form one single goal. In other words, as we have already pointed out, the ultimate goal of life is to live and what enables us to pursue this ultimate goal in a meaningful manner is our traditional scheme of purusharthas. Applying the distinction between form and content, we can boldly say that the fourfold scheme of purusharthas is what gives content to our ultimate goal of being meaningfully alive. If this is granted, then there is no reason why we cannot use the traditional expression sawodaya or lokasamgraha for the kind of ultimate goal we have described above. The purusharthas are pursued so that every thing may live, and that too, meaningfully. In other words, the ultimate goal of lokasamgraha invites us to pursue dharma, artha, kama and moksha in a reasonable and meaningful manner. That is, lokasamgraha is the metapurushartha that enables us to secure all the other purusharthas.

4 Thus, in saying that to live meaningfully is the ultimate goal we are saying that the welfare of the world is the ultimate goal. Now, positing lokasamgraha as a metapurushartha demands that we substantiate it and illustrate it if possible. By way of meeting this demand, let us begin by taking up the question of another metapurushartha. 4. Bhakti - a Metapurushartha? There are theologians like Subhash Anand and texts like the Bhagavata Purana who assert that bhakti is a metapurushartha. In India in particular, the Vaisnava theologians hold this position. Not only that. There is the strong belief that we are in Kaliyuga and that bhakti is the best and the only way out. This belief is reinforced by the fact that Bhakti is the most dominant mode of religious behavior in India today. To take a sample, this is amply illustrated by the life and message of godly people like Satya Sai Baba or Matha Arnrtananda Mai who prescribe nothing but Bhakti. (i). Basing himself on his study of the Bhagavata Purana, Subhash Anand has argued that bhakti is a metapurushartha in the sense that besides being the most effective means to attain the four purusharthas, it is also the ultimate meaning, the sadhya of all the purusharthas and thus it takes us even beyond moksha traditionally held to be the highest of the four.^ The Bhagavata puranaz affirms that the service of the Lord is the 'one and only' means to secure all the four and to ensure our welfare. Thus, bhakti is not only the safest means (sadhana) but also the highest end& the parama purushartha.4 For a man who surrenders himself to the Lord, the Lord himself appears as the 'fourfold fulfilment9.s If so all human striving finds its 'indefeasible fulfilment' (acyuta-artha) in and through bhakti.

5 Love for the Lord enables the devotee to be detached,6 to simplify his life, and to cut down his needs. He believes that the Lord is more concerned about him than he himself can be, and that the earth can provide him all that he really needs.7 (ii). Even though this understanding of bhakti is true, the question remains: What is even this bhakti meant for? Both the Bhagavata Purana and its student Subhash Anand admit that Bhakti is not only not against secular involvement but it positively helps us to be more genuinely concerned about the welfare of others. The best example of this is Bhagavan Hari and his avatara, Krishna, who moves about in the world, fully detached, seeking nothing but the 'good of the world' (lokasarngraha).s If this is true, then the real metapurushartha is not bhakti but lokasarngraha. Here we may recall how Krishna in the Gita insists that Arjuna should do his duty for the sake of lokasamgrahas. The point is that we need not renounce our secular responsibilities in order to attain perfection. If even the Lord, the object of bhakti, wants us to get involved in the world,~o lokasamgraha must be the ultimate goal as far as our temporal life is concerned. Bhakti is, then, only a special means that makes our secular involvement selfless and thereby authentic, and therefore Bhakti cannot be considered a meta Purushartha. 5. God-realization: a Metapurushartha? If lokasamgraha is the ultimate goal, the metapurushartha, what about The Service of the Lord' the Bhagavada Purana emphasizes? How shall we account for the position that the vision of God, God-realization, is our final goal? Is the love and service of God our ultimate goal? Not only the vaisnava theologians in India but also

6 Christian theologians in the West have taken the position that 'service of the Lord' is the metapurushartha. For instance, 'we created to love and serve the Lord', says St. Ignatius of Loyola. How is this position compatible with our contention that sawodaya is the metapurushartha? Solution to this problem depends on what we mean when we speak of God. When speaking of God what we usually have in mind is either his transcendence or his immanence or both. All those whom we regard as having a God-realization tell us clearly one thing: Transcendence of God defies description. So, whether we have all God-realization or not, we are not authorized to say anything definite about the transcendence of God. Whereas when we speak of the immanence of God we can say for certain that lokasamgraha is the ultimate goal. For, according to many religions God takes human form for the welfare of the world. This is attested by the theory of avatars in Hinduism, the doctrine of incarnation in Christianity, etc. How this is confirmed by the sacred texts like the Bible and the Gita is common knowledge and therefore we can take it that even God has lokasamgraha as his goal. Let us briefly illustrate this point from the Hindu traditions. That God is immanent and his ultimate interest is in lokasamgraha is a theme that runs through all the books of the Hindu traditions.11 What it means is that 'God is in everything and everything is in God'. This is known as Panentheism which is different from pantheism (meaning 'everything is God and God is everything'). Panentheism and immanence is strongly affirmed by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan: The point of The Hindu view rebels against the cold and formal conception of God who is external to the world and all together remote and transcendent. 12 We can cite at least 19 texts from the Bhagavad Gita alone which speak explicitly of panentheism.13 Everything, even places, are signs of God.14

7 6. The Ideal of Jivan Mukti The idea of Jivan mukti is also an indication that the ultimate goal is lokasamgraha. For, Jivan mukti, emancipation while still in this life, is supposed to be for the sake of those who are still in samsara, in bondage. The jivan mukta's presence and fervor are a great source of consolation and inspiration for others.1~ According to the Bhagavad Gita, the guna-atitai6 which means jivan mukta is expected to live for the welfare of all beings.17 And if we consider Janaka, Gandhi, Samkara, Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, and many others like them as Jivan Muktas in that they all led a liberated life, then it is obvious that their lives were fully dedicated to the welfare of all, of course, in varying degrees Satya Implies Sarvodaya The Gandhian concept of satya which he identifies with dharma, moksha, God etc as the highest goal also implies lokasamgraha as the ultimate goal. The word satya is the verbal adjective of the root as (to be), and it may be translated as 'that which ought tc be'.ir Hence when one has satya, one has or rather, one is what he ought to be, i. e., he has an authentic existence.20 One has a fully authentic existence only when he is fully what he ought to, and therefore, can be. How is this potentiality actualized? The power to love is the deepest potency of man. This love is actualized when it is directed to the totality of reality including God. And this is what Gandhi and our literary tradition mean by lokasamgraha. Before elaborating what Gandhi has to say on Lokasamgraha, let us listen to how the Bhagavata purana affirms it.

8 The Bhagavata purana repeatedly affirms that the bhakta is a man of universal charity. He is 'equally disposed to all',zl 'views all equally1,22 bas mercy on al11,z3 is 'friendly to all',24 'desires the welfare of all'2s and is 'helpful to al11.z6 One teacher, 'an expert in the science of the spirit', classifies the devotees into three grades. The highest bhakta makes no distinction, but loves all; while the second and third rate bhaktas love God and other devotees, or only God, respectively.27 A real devotee does not make the distinction of mine and not-mine, but 'views all equally'.zs The Bhagavata purana defines satya as 'viewing all equally'.~!? One cannot attain the highest form of bhakti without inculcating love for all men. Love for man is the best service we can offer to God.30 and without this love for all, worship is but a mockery, it being as good as pouring the offering into the ashes.31 Real bhakti fosters universal brotherhood..iz Man's well being presupposes not only order within the society but also order within the cosmos. The Bhagavada purana suggests that the more a man is governed by dharma the more effectively does he become present in the cosmos, thereby enhancing its availability to all. Gandhi's view of the purusharthas, as we have summarized, also points to lokasamgraha as the meta purushartha. Gandhi, like the mimamsakas and the Buddhists, regarded dharma as the highest value. And in his view, dharma is without meaning apart from lokasamgraha, the welfare of the whole world. Gandhi says, Man become.\ great exactly to the degree to which he works for the welfare of his fellow men.33

9 In Gandhian view, all the purusharthas ought to contribute to lokasamgraha. Gandhi made this possible by reconciling the two apparently contradictory tendencies in man - spiritual inwardness and extreme involvement, nivrtti and pravrtti. He realized that inwardness can be fruitful and not escapist only in the context of the world around us; and involvement in the world can be effective and not destructive only in the context of the strength that comes through inwardness. In other words, self-mastery and the service of others are interdependent aspects of life. Thus, Gandhi (like Buddha) shows us the connection between the service of the suffering humanity and the process of self-purification. Gandhi was an explicit believer in advaita, 'the essential unity of God and man and for that matter of all that lives1.34 One of the implications of this belief is this: It negates the belief that an individual may gain spiritually and those that surround him suffer.3~ I1 A SYNOPTIC SUMMARY 1. Introduction We have already given a thematic summary at the beginning and end of every chapter. We do not therefore intend to repeat those summaries in this final Chapter in a chronological order. Rather, What we propose to do here is to give a general view, a synoptic summary, recapitulating some of the salient points that emerge from our deliberations so far. We began our discussion by asking the question: What are the things that are ultimately worth aiming at in life? After taking a closer look at this fundamental question of the meaning and goal of life, we examined the Indian answer to it. The fourfold scheme of purusharthas is the Indian answer. This answer, we discovered, is an essentially sound one. But we also realized that this

10 soundness has not been sufficiently highlighted. We therefore embarked on an appraisal and updating of our thinking on the purusharthas. And we have made this process visual enough in the light of the Story of Rishyasringa. 2. A Priori Conditions The main point of our thesis may be formulated in philosophical terms as follows: The purusharthas are the a priori conditions of being a human being. (They are like the Kantian categories). That is, the purusharthas are the grounds of the possibility of human life. The only condition for the validity of this assumption is that the purusharthas are to be treated as interacting. In other words, the purusharthas in their mutuality is what makes life human. They make us human because they are cornpresent in every one of experiences. That they are cornpresent in every one of our experiences means that the purusharthas are interactional, reciprocal. If so, they compliment each other and control the extreme tendencies of each other. And thus in their mutuality they enable us to realize our ultimate goal which may be termed as sarvodaya or Logasamgraha. 3. Normative Orientations To convert this philosophical formulation of the main point of our thesis into ethical language: the purusharthas are what give us a normative orientation to life. For, they signify all those goals the pursuit of which is expressive of our nature as a whole. In other words, the purusharthas form the basis of a practical and comprehensive philosophy of life. Our particular purposes, values, are only expressions of the general principles called the purusharthas.

11 In other words, the purusharthas are to be treated as normative orientations because they give us a sense of direction and thus make our integral growth possible. This integrated view of life and approach to growth can certainly go a long way in making the earth a better place to live in, in the sense that they can bring about in us a healthy change of attitude to ourselves and to others including the Mother Earth. 4. An Ethico-Philosophical Postulate The above formulation of our thesis is an ethico-philosophical postulate. The truth of this postulate cannot directly be proved scientifically; its truth can only be and ought to be assumed. For, a priori conditions are like the postulates of Induction which cannot be proved but must be taken for granted as a sine qua non conditio of all scientific proofs. However, indirect, pragmatic, proofs are possible. We have given such an indirect proof with the help of the Story of Rishyasringa and with our exposition of the ecological crisis. What is thus indirectly proved beyond doubt is this: To follow any one particular purushartha exclusively would be to negate it as a purushartha. For example, kama without the mediation of the other three purusharthas would not be human desire. Or, Moksha without regard for the other three purusharthas would not be selfless. The point is that all the four purusharthas are compresent in every one of our experience. This is what we mean when we say that the purusharthas define the transcendental a priori framework of human life. What happens if this integrated scheme of life is neglected? Then the results are surely ills in individual and social life. This is perhaps one of the reasons why Veda-Vyasa cried out: I cry with arms uplifted, but none hears! Artha and Kama result from Dharma; why then is it not followed?3o

12 But none listerred, and the Kauravas, Pandavas, and the Yadnvas all came lo destruction. Two world wars, each far more destructive than the Mahabharata War, in the first half of the 20th century, have illustrated this law: Grab, greed, hate and lust are followed by vast butcheries. Hindu India strained the rules of true dharma when it advocated in theory the equality of all in relation to Brahman, but in practice negated it by an atrocious multiplication of mutually repellent castes and sub-castes, thereby weakening the integriq of thr, social system and falling an easy prey lo foreign aggression, first Muslim, then European, which not only seized its body, but also made an assault upon its spiritual citadel by capturing the imagination of the socially neglected, degraded, and oppressed classes by an offer of social equality Philosophical Pessimism Ruled out As already argued for, the point of the thesis is: All the purusharthas are compresent in every one of our experiences. Though this point sounds rather abstract, it is nevertheless true. If true, it has several implications that are important for our understanding of the purusharthas. Some of these important implications are briefly stated below. One of the implications is that our thesis ~les out philosophical pessimism. Any one who accepts our interpretation of the theory of purusharthas can see that philosophical pessimism has no place in life. For, the theory of purusharthas is an affirmation that life is meaningful. Therefore, as we have seen, philosophical pessimism cannot stand to reason. Not only that life is meaningful but also that it can

13 be meaningful in a variety of senses as the distinctions we have made show. Of course, this does not mean that all purposes are meaningful purposes. Purpose, to be meaningful, has to signify value(s). In so far as this is so, our thesis also invalidates the utilitarian view. what is the ultimate value that makes our life purposeful? The answer is that the intrinsic worth of life is itself the ultimate value. If the ultimate goal is to live, the utilitarian view that happiness is the ultimate goal cannot be true. Life is often regarded as worth living even without happiness. As a matter of fact, most people behave just as if just being alive is intrinsically good. Of course, this is not to forget that though life is worthwhile even without happiness, life has to be taken in its 'ordinary' sense. And purusharthas are what makes our life 'ordinary' in the sense that they give form and content to it. In short, we might say that life has intrinsic value and therefore its goal is to live and that the purusharthas are what give content to this goal. 6. Interactional rather than Hierarchical Another important implication of our thesis concerns the interrelationship among the various purusharthas. Our discussion has clearly brought out the point that the Purusharthas are interactional rather than hierarchical. Also, being interactional, they together form one singe goal. What happens if the purusharthas are not / regarded as interactional and thus forming one single goal? The result would become destructive of the individual as well as of the society. This is proved by the fact that in the absence of mutual control artha becomes materialistic quest, kama becomes lust, dharma becomes legalistic and ritualistic and moksha becomes a kind of escape from the reality of the world.

14 Therefore the purusharthas are to be taken as interactional and thus forming one single goal. But this single goal need not be the ultimate goal. As said already, to live is the ultimate goal, the paramapurushartha. For it has an intrinsic value. But since this goal (to live) is not traditionally named as the purushartha and since it is highly formal and abstract, we call it the metapurushartha and to make it concrete we call it lokasarngraha. What gives content to lokasamgraha and thus makes it operational is the traditional four fold scheme of purusharthas. And, in fact, no one has ever questioned the relevance of our living for lokasamgraha. On the contrary, every body, liberated or not yet liberated, has affirmed it as a must. In short, the ideal of lokasarngraha, is relevant for all times because it is the only comprehensive ideal that would take care of all the problems of our being part of this samsara. 7. Mutuality This interactional interpretation of the purusharthas makes one thing crystal clear: In the absence of mutuality a purushartha ceases to be a purushartha in the full sense of the term. Dharma, for instance, comes to have meaning only because there are the other purusharthas. Dharma is the most important constituent of trivarga. Dharma is the principle that regulates the other purusharthas and therethrough our life. Historically, dharma may be understood as 'code of conduct'. Its sources are said to be sruti, smrti, sadacara and atmatusti. These four sources are to be taken as a matrix of interacting iactors. Dharma is divided into three - samanya, visesa and rnoksha. The traditional interpretation of dharma raises some problems such as what to choose in case of a conflict between the various sources of dharma, and the question of why should I practice dharma? The answer is Tat tvam asi.

15 Similarly, Artha, the acquisitive principle, ceases to be a purushartha if unrelated to the other purusharthas. we have seen that it signifies power, both economic and political. Artha, according to the Arthasastra, has preeminence in the sense that it makes the other purusharthas possible. But it does not follow from this that artha is also the most important. Artha is to be pursued in accordance with dharma. Gandhi goes a step further and considers artha (politics) as an aspect of dharma. In short, artha comes to have meaning only in relation to the other purusharthas. If artha is an aspect of our daily life and if it cannot therefore be taken in isolation, then one thing is certain: The doctrine of double standards is not really tenablc. Our understanding of Kama is also interactional. our general traditional position is that kama like artha, is to be regulated by dharma and oriented to moksha and this is how kama forms part of the scheme of purusharthas. For instance, kama, which should not even be contemplated before the end of one's education (a point the college students may take note of) was considered a prelude to dharma. And, neither kama nor dharma could be pursued without the status and means afforded by the successful practice of artha. Then as now, there was no romance without finance. But, to see kama in relation to the other purusharthas is not to minimize its role in our daily life. Kama, we have seen, is the instinctive principle in us which prompts us to act; It means both desire and the object of desire. Our traditional understanding of kama advocates the maintenance of life rather than the renunciation of life. A kama-oriented life has a positive role to play in our well-being. This does not in any way mean that there was no puritanical outlook on life. The point is that in general we do not find a dichotomy between the enjoyment of pleasure (like the sexual) and the pursuit of spiritual interests. In short, we are a people who delight in both the things of the senses and the things of the spirit.

16 Moksha likewise comes to have meaning only in relation to the other purusharthas. As already said, moksha means both freedom from and freedom to. Of these, if we emphasize the aspect of freedom to then moksha cannot certainly be properly understood except in its relation to the other purusharthas. Also, this aspect of freedom to is confirmed by the position of several thinkers that moksha is to be sought within the world rather than away from it. For example, according to Nagarjuna of the Mahayana school of Buddhism, Moksha is to be found within the world by those who can see what the world really is at bottom. This view is based on the philosophy that all phenomena are really grounded in one transcendental Reality. That is, this conception of moksha is based on the philosophy of the unity of all beings The Question of Hierarchy Another implication of our thesis is that the traditional understanding of hierarchy among the purusharthas is done away with. Instead, we have given the purusharthas an interactional interpretation. If this interpretation holds, then it invalidates the unquestioned assumption of superiority among the purusharthas. (By implication it also invalidates the assumption of superiority among castes or ashramas). In other words, what render the question of hierarchy among the purusharthas irrelevant are the interaction and the consequent exercise of mutual control. No doubt. this interactional interpretation is indeed a philosophical one. And from this philosophical point of view there cannot be a hierarchy among the purusharthas. But looked at from the point of view of our cultural tradition, the reality of hierarchy cannot be denied, assuming that we are justified in making a distinction between the two points of view - the philosophical and the cultural.

17 9. An Integral Trait of Indian Culture The distinction just made brings us to another implication of our thesis: The theory of purusharthas is an integral trait of our Culture. This we have illustrated mainly in the context of the Mahabharata. That too, in the context of the Story of Rishyasringa in particular. This contextualization is justified on two grounds. First, because the Purusharthas are the central concern of this great epic. Secondly because the Mahahharata is still widely loved and vividly told in our countryside and in our cultural life. What this contextualization of the discussion reveals is significant: The Mahahharata and therethrough the purusharthas continue to have their impact on us even today. For, as far as our values and ideals are concerned, our present day society is not basically different from the kind of society this ithihasa discloses. To put it figuratively, our discussion of the purusharthas is sprinkled with the fragrance of our living past which has molded our character and ideals. In other words, the scheme of purusharthas pervades our whole culture. Looking at our cultural tradition, we can boldly infer at least three things. 1. The theory of purusharthas is not limited to any particular school of philosophy or to any particular religion or to any particular text. Rather, it goes beyond any such confines and remains an inalienable trait of our cultural background as a whole. 2. Our cultural tradition not only affirms the meaningfulness of life but it also upholds the maintenance of life. In other words, what is demanded by the theory of purusharthas is transformation of life rather than its negation in the sense of renunciation of life. 3. Maintaining a positive attitude towards life, our tradition presents an integrated view of life.

18 If we are right in these observations, then the interpretation, by some, of the traditional Indian attitude as 'world-and-life-negating' is not really founded. This is not to deny, of course, that one cannot gather isolated texts to prove a pessimistic outlook on life if one wants to. Similarly, to say that the theory of purusharthas affirms an integrated approach to life does not mean that this has always been the case. In fact. there is a neglected strand of Indian tradition. Namely, karma yoga or spiritual realization through social action which is associated with our classical heroes like Rama and Janaka. But it must be remembered with gratitude that this neglected strand of our tradition has been reaffirmed in modern India by Gandhi, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, and others.39 All that is meant is: our cultural tradition, on the whole, has considered the temporal pursuits such as kama and artha equally important as the spiritual pursuits such as dharma and moksha. 10. A Dangerous Fallacy Another serious implication of our thesis is this: To follow any one or two purusharthas in isolation is a dangerous fallacy. This cardinal point of our thesis we have amply illustrated by the Story of Rishyasringa and that of the present day ecological impasse. The Story of Rishyasringa shows how the exclusive following of any one purusharthas is a grave fallacy. It is not like a logical fallacy which only renders one's argument invalid but does not make one culpable. Whereas the exclusive pursuit of any one purushartha is a fallacy in the sense that our life would not then be human life. In other words, a purushartha ceases to be a purushartha

19 if followed exclusively. That is, purusharthas in their mutuality is what makes our life meaningful. To show how this is so and thus to appraise and update our thinking on the purusharthas has been our central concern. The undesirable consequences of our exclusive following of any one or two of the purusharthas is also evident in our ecological crisis today. The crisis is that as a consequence of our excessive kama-artha tendencies our mother Earth is being done to death. Nuclear Wars, misemployment, famine, abuse of topsoil, cult of machines, deforestation, elimination of species. exploitation of Nations are only some of factors that exhibit our greed to possess and consume and our ignorance of the whole. All this contributes to our matricide. It is high time that we realize that it is not that the Earth belongs to us; rather, that it is we who belong to the Earth. 11. The Ideal of Lokasamgraha Another implication of our thesis is that there is need for positing a metapurushartha. True, from a philosophical point of view, it can be argued that the theory of trivarga is self-complete. But when looked at from a historiw-cultural point of view, the theory of trivarga is incomplete and that may perhaps be the reason why moksha is introduced and thus we have the chaturvarga theory of purusharthas. According to this chaturvarga theory, moksha is the purushartha proper and the other purusharthas are purusharthas only in an extended sense. In other words, speaking from our :ultural point of view, there is a gradation among the purusharthas and they are all purusharthas but not in the same sense. Given the limitations of each purushartha taken individually, some have thought of positing a metapurushartha. Bhakti, atmasaksatkara, Jivan Mukti etc, have been thought of as metapumsharthas by different people. But on closer analysis we

20 find that such metapu~sharthas are ultimately aimed at the welfare of all beings called sarvodaya or logasamgraha. Therefore, the real metapurushartha to be posited is sarvodaya or logasamgraha. That the purusharthas in their mutuality enable us to realize our ultimate goal of logasamgraha is illustrated by the Story of Rishyasringa thus: The wellbeing of the Kingdom of Anga is a symbol of our ultimate goal of Logasamgraha. In order to have sufficient rain for the prosperity of the Kingdom of Anga all the purusharthas - all the resources both natural and human - are pooled together and are made to interact. Besides this interactional aspect, the Story highlights the ideal of Logasamgraha in another significant manner: The Sage Lomasa who told this story concludes it by giving us the following advice: "Spend your lives in mutual love and worship of God, after the example of great men". What is to be taken note of here is this: Our tradition regards as great only those who have pursued all the purusharthas in their mutuality for the sake of logasamgraha in one way or other. We posit Logasamgrha as the ultimate goal (Metapurushartha) also because of a philosophical argument in social ethics. Namely, the Purusharthas are to be regarded as Social Goals. Artha and Dharma are clearly social goals in the sense that they can meaningfully be sought only in a social world. Kama and Moksha are also social goals though they are not usually understood that way. So there is the need to clarify whether these two are really social goals. Let us take kama first. In the sense of agreeable experience. kama may be personal. But in the context of the theory of purusharthas, kama is largely a social value. That is, the theory seems to stress the experience as the result of the satisfaction of desires rather than the experience per se. For, the point the theory highlights is that the 221

21 fulfilment of desires involves some social interaction. This is clear from the question of how kama is related to the other purusharthas. According to the theory, any kama is ok only if it is in accordance with dharma. Artha is a sine qua non conditio for the satisfaction of kama. If kama is subject to dharma and dependent on artha then it cannot but have some social impact. It is this interpersonal impact of our desires whose fulfilment is categorized as the purushartha of kama. Is it not logically possible to have a desire whose fulfilment need not necessarily involve any reference to any one else? Perhaps yes. It may even be empirically possible in the sense that kama can include desires which may be regarded as personalistic. e.g. the desire to attain mental peace by meditation. Even if this is so, the point of the theory of purusharthas we are making is different: Its accent falls on desires that are social. What is the basis for determining the value of agreeable feelings resulting from the satisfaction of desires? According to the theory of purusharthas, what determines the value of pleasures is the value given to the object of desire. Doing charity produces a higher pleasure than the one malevolence does. For, charity is regarded as a higher value than malevolence. In short, the trivarga are social goals. Of these, Dharma is a necessary condition for any successful pursuit of kama and artha. Besides, it is dharma which determines which kanla is worth pursuing and which kama is not. Now, how about Moksha? It also ought to be taken as a social goal. Before explaining how this is so, let us have a word on the nature of Moksha. We have seen that it is the spiritual principle. Etymologicaliy, it is the state of being liberated as well as the process of becoming free. This concept of moksha might have originated either from our fear of death or from our unjust state of affairs. Origins apart, the concept of moksha got more and more refined as well as sophisticated as our styles

22 VL (schools) of thought developed down the centuries. This development is evident as,go R th~ugh our Vedas, Upanishads, the Mahabharata and other texts and the various schools of thought. What is the nature of this goal? Some say that the concept of Moksha is personalistic; According to some others, it is social. But our analysis tend to show that it is perhaps both. For, Moksha means freedom both freedom from and freedom to. If we take it to mean freedom from then it can reasonably be interpreted as a personalistic goal. If we take it to mean freedom to then it can reasonably be shown to be a social goal. This is the reason why we say that it is perhaps both personalistic and social. Of course this is not to deny the fact that, when looked at from our predominant traditional point of view, the accent often falls on freedom from and therefore on its personalistic aspect. Though moksha can be shown to be a personalistic goal from a philosophical point of vie&, it really ought to be a social goal. This is evident when we stress its 'freedom-to' aspect. In fact, many like Gandhi and Buddha have held that the desire for one's own salvation as selfish at bottom. And as if demonstrating this fact, Buddha even after his enlightenment continued to live and work for the liberation of suffering beings. In the place of personal liberation, the Mahayana school of Buddhism establishes the 'liberation of all sentient beings' as the ultimate spiritual aspiration: The vow that a devour Mahayanist is expected to take is that he would try to achieve the state of Enlightenment, Bodhisattva (the Wisdom-state-of-existence), not to live aloof from the world hut to work with perfect wisdom and love among the multitudes of suffering beings for removing their misery and achieving fheirsalvation.40

23 In the final analysis, the ideal of jivanmukti is also aimed at the ideal of logasamgrha. Buddha is one of the best examples of such jivanmuktas who are well known for their selfless service of fellow beings. 12. Universifiable Another obvious implication of our thesis is that the theory of purusharthas, though of Indian origin, has a universality and necessity about them. The meaning of life in terms of its ultimate goal - purushartha - is a matter of utmost concern to every human being. Since the theory of purusharthas is a fundamental reflection on the meaning of life, it cannot be limited to any particular period of history and tradition though we confined our discussion to the Indian context for practical purposes. All that we are saying is that in so far as the theory of purusharthas justify the motivational structure of human behavior and conduct it is valid for all times and places. Considering our constant conflict and illusory quest referred to at the end of the initial chapter, this explanation of the underlying motives of our behavior and conduct is valid for all times in the sense that the four fold scheme of pumsharthas is universalizablc. In other words, the theoretical outlook on life the theory of purusharthas convey is surely universifiable. 13. Moksha Along with the World One of the very important implications of this way of understanding the pumsharthas is that our moksha is not from the world but is along with the world. We have seen that the ecological crisis is one of the undesirable consequences of our exclusive and excessive kama-artha tendencies. Also, while discussing this crisis we

24 discovered that we humans and the Nature are companions in our fortunes as well as in our misfortunes. To put it in our traditional technical language, we are companions in our experience of samsara resulting from our avidya. It is therefore naturally reasonable to infer that we must also be companions in our mukti (liberation). If this inference is granted, then the age old belief that we are finally freed from the world is totally unacceptable. Rather, what is acceptable is, as Pope John Paul 11 has put it clearly, that we are freed along with the world rather than from the world.41 Here it is not out of place to recall that one of the prayers Jesus of Nazareth prayed was not to take away the disciples from the world. 14. Moksha - a Matter of Practical Philosophy Conceptually moksha is ontological in nature. If so, the concept of moksha is descriptive in nature rather than prescriptive. This means that it cannot be a prescriptive (normative) concept like justice. It is often argued that moksha is not only descriptive but it is also an ideal state of knowledge. But this is a point of dispute among scholars. This only shows that there is logical unclarity with regard to the nature of rnoksha (and therefore also with regard to the kind of immortality people have in mind). All that we can confidently affirm is that the idea of moksha (and therefore that of immortality) is a matter of faith and therefore belongs to practical philosophy in the sense that moksha (and immortality) are ideals to be actualized. Another point of dispute concerns the relationship between Moksha and Indian Philosophy. Most of the historians of Indian philosophy hold the view that Moksha and Indian philosophy are integrally related. That is, Moksha is the central concern of Indian Philosophy and that is why Indian philosophy can be regarded as spiritual. But the truth of this common belief depends on what is really meant by spiritual. If by spiritual we mean that which is opposed to what is material then this common belief is not true. For, practically every school of Indian philosophy admits the reality of

25 matter. Therefore, from a philosophical point of view, the widespread belief that lndian philosophy is spiritual is not really sound. What then is the explanation for this common contention? The explanation is to be found in our age old practice of accepting the spiritual goal of moksha as the ultimate goal of life. Given this trait of our culture, it is understandable that anything, to be respectable had to be related to moksha in some way or other. Hence, philosophy like other disciplines came to be thought of as mainly concerned with moksha, even when as a matter of fact it had mighty little to do with moksha. 15. Our National Flag - A Symbol of Purusharthas By way of concluding this discussion of purusharthas, let us salute our National Flag. the distinctive symbol of our country and culture. For, besides being the symbol of our freedom, it also signifies the ideals we live for. Since the purusharthas are our ideals, we may be justified in interpreting our National Flag as representing the purusharthas. According to Vexillologists, flags are artifacts expressive of the culture of certain times and places. Ours is a purushartha-culture which our National Flag so colorfully symbolizes. To understand this symbolism, we must look at how our National Flag is designed. It is a horizontal tri-color of deep saffron (Kesari) at the top, pure white in the middle and dark green at the bottom in equal proportion. In the center of the white band is a wheel, in navy blue, which represents charkha (Khadi Spinning Wheel). Its design is that of the wheel (Chakra) which appears on the abacus of the Sarnath Lion Capital of Asoka.42 The color combination together with the wheel at the center of the flag when flown may be taken as an interpretation of the interrelationship of the various

26 purusharthas and their dynamism. If we take the color of saffron to represent our desire (the instinctive principle in us), then it symbolizes the kama-purushartha. Similarly, if we take green to represent prosperity (the acquisitive principle in us), it symbolizes the artha-purushartha. White is certainly a symbol of purity (the spiritual principle in us) and it can therefore quite easily become a representation of the moksha-purushartha. And finally the wheel, the symbol of order and progress (the guiding principle in us), can be taken as a representation of the dharma-purushartha. If we are right in this interpretation, then our National Flag is indeed a visual statement of how the various purusharthas are integrally related. In fact, no other symbol in our culture has expressed the mutuality and interaction of the four purusharthas better. Gandhiji's understanding of the purusharthas and of their interrelationship can be taken as a confirmation of our interpretation of the National Flag. For he believed in the fundamental unity of life and he conceived the various purusharthas as involving each other. Given the reciprocity of the purusharthas as Gandhiji saw it, our inherited notions of individualism and saintliness become out dated. Challenging these notions. Gandhiji considered Satya which implies sarvodaya as the highest human value. This is in fact evident in our 'National motto: Satyameva Jayate'.

27 REFERENCES Subhash Anand, "Bhakti: a Meta-pumshartha" Jeevadhara, 67,1982, pp The Bhagavata-Purana. (the Gita Press, Gorakhpur, 1971, Ihid Ihid., Ibid.. caturnidha-artha, : Ibid., vairagya, 1.7. lbid., ; Also, cf. S. Anand, "Spiritual Discipleship as Described hy the Bhagavatd Purana." Indian Theological Studies. XV, pp The Bhagavata Purana, ; Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavata Purana, Swami Abhishiktananda, Hindu-Christian Meeting Point. The lnstltute of Indian Culture, Bombay, p.69. The Hindu View of Life, Allen and Unwin, London, 1961, p. 51 The Bhagavad Gita ; 11.38; 9.4; 15.17; 9.18; 10.20: ; 7.10; 14.4: 15.4: 11.18; 8.22: 8.21; 7.6; 13.3; 1.9ff; 10.8: ; Bede Griffiths, Return to the Center, Fount Paper backs, 2nd Impression. London p. 12. S. Anand. "Jivan-Multi or Liberation in this Life" The Bhagavata Purana, This is how Vidyaranya who lived in the 14th century and is the author of Jivan-mukti Viveka understands it. cf. S. Anand, op. cit. p. 180, 184.

28 cf. C.. Valiaveetil. Liberated Life: Ideal of Jivanmukti in Iodian Religions specially in Saiva Sidhanla, Dialogue series I, Madurai, 1980, p. 59. F. lelhorn. A Grammar of the Sanskrit Language, Vara~asi, Chawkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Rep. 1970, pp and 274. S. Anand, "Satyam eva jayate", Mission in India, Yoona, Ishvani Kendra Series No. 7, 1979, pp The Bhagavata Purana, sarva-hhuta-sama, ; samana-ultama madhyama-adhama, Ibid.. sama-drs 1.4.: sama-darsin :27; tulya-darsana, 1.5:24 Ibid.. sarva-bhuta-daya, lbid. maltra ; sarva-dehi-suhrt Ibid..sarva-hhuta-hita-atma Ibid.. sarva-upakaraka Ibid Ibid.. 11.?.52. Ibid.. satyam ca samadarsanam Ibid Ibid Ibid where we have the moving story of King Rantideva who shares the on11 meal he has with a Brahmin. a Sudra, and an outcast. Ethical Religion, (niti dharma), Ganesan, 1922, Trans. by Rama Iyer. p.54. Young India, Drc Ibid. Mababharata Bharataratna Dhagavan Das, 'Introduction' lo The Cultural Heritage of India, Vol.iv, Calcutta. Ramakrishna Mission Institute, p.15.

29 38. Satischandra Chatterjee & Dhirendramohan Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, 7th ed., University of Calcutta,l968, pp Swami Vivekananda, "Karma Yoga", Speeches and Writings of Swami Vivekananda, Natesan. 1934; Sri Aurobindo, The Ideal of the Karmayogin, Aurobindo Ashram Press, (Of coursr, there is a difference to remember: Unlike either Vivekananda or Aurobindo. Gandhi believed strongly that the time had come for the purification of politics and the reformation of religion in lndia). 40. Satischandra Chattcrjec & Dhirendrarnohan Datta, An Introduction to Indian philosophy, p Peace Day Message), No This des~gn of our National Flag was adopted by the Constituent Axsemhly of lndia on 22nd July, 1947.