Out of India: Classical values for Today and Tomorrow
Michael Witzel (Harvard University)
It is a platitude to reiterate that the
19/20th century can be regarded as Euro-American centuries. This trend is now
reinforced by the still increasing use of English all over the globe and by the
inherent modernist and globalizing tendencies of instant communication and
ever-expanding network of the global economy. Marshall McLuhan's Global Village
has became a reality some 30 years after he first prophesied it.
Not
that this somewhat naively optimistic, "progress"- oriented
(American) view of the world goes without its critics. Inside the European
civilization itself, critics have for long seen the dangers inherent here (even
since Nietzsche, Spengler, etc.).
However,
the Euro-American civilization -luckily - still has its counterpoint and
competitors in various parts of the world, and our symposium represents a
sizable chunk of the ancient and of the still living counter-proposals, from
the Near Eastern countries to China and Japan.
We
may therefore ask:
* which (non-western) views of humanity are
possible and practicable in this new century and beyond?
* which aspects of humanity should be
developed that are underestimated/not stressed in modern western civilization?
Since
I have studied India and South Asia for more than 3 decades now and since I
have lived in some 5 countries on 3 continents, among which for some 7 years in
South Asia, mostly in Nepal (1972-8), I hope I can contribute both textual data
and personal observations and perspectives from South Asia (in the sequel, for
short: "India"), and also a few pertinent observations from Europe,
America and Japan, imperfect as my ad hoc interpretation may be.
In
proposing such items, I think, the stress should be on the 'best' pan-human
aspects, showing the range of possibilities, while choice among them should be
presented as an individual one, as important for one's own development, as well
as that for society as a whole (but not as restricted by traditional local
society).
In order to evaluate the possible
contributions of a particular non-Euro-American civilizations to such an
endeavor, we must study the values of an individual "whole
civilization" such as the Indian one.
Important
values of particular civilizations, such as the sanctity of life, the honoring
of elders, primordial sin, the pursuit of happiness etc., are based on
foundational accounts, myths and beliefs of the civilization in question (see
Witzel 1998 in the first colloquium). We must study the world view, the
weltanschauung that drives a particular civilization, that "makes it
tick".
We
have to isolate such foundational accounts that have lasted over millennia
within a particular civilization and have shaped it. Such accounts give meaning
to our lives, even if we do not always recognize it, due to childhood
socialization and while having grown up with the culture in question. We will
investigate that point in some detail, as we go on.
Beginning with my own, the western or
Euro-American one, this civilization is, according to Enrique Dussel,
characterized by the western / Christian myth of superiority, just obtained
after defeating the Muslims in the Iberian peninsula. While this is perhaps
modeled to closely on his major topic, the colonization by the Iberian peoples,
especially the Spanish, of Central and South America, we must also take into
account a host of other foundational features,
I
do not need to remind you or stress that some are Judaeo-Christian in origin
(Hebrew with a Pauline/Augustine overlay of Graeco-Roman thought): linear time,
creation of humans in the image of God, secondary position of women, primordial
fall/sin, chosen people, personal relation to God, a primordial order to humans
to conquer the world, nature as submitted to humans, later on also: success as
a measure of God's Pleasure (Calvinistic, American) of the chosen ones.
Others
salient points are an outcome of this view under influence of Renaissance and
Enlightenment: stress of rationality, practicality in action (instrumental
rationality), in dealing with other humans, nature and the world in general,
and a continuous linear progress in technology, with comparative neglect of
other aspects of the human nature; extension of this attitude to social
engineering (Socialism, Communism, also Nazism, etc.), while looking for a
paradise on earth in various forms.
The
epitome now is, after the post-Vietnam slump, the present, post-Soviet Union,
triumphalist American assertion as the "only superpower" and the
naive export of its 'values' globally, as the only possible one means leading
to human amelioration and happiness.
These
trends have been counterbalanced, however, especially since the Renaissance, by
an ever increasing, swift change of cultural fashions that sometime stress the
more emotional and spiritual aspects of humans (Baroque 'vale of tears', Sturm
und Drang, emotional and religious Romanticism, New Age, Cults etc.) And, the
religious and societal backlashes against to much of technological innovation
(Weavers unrest, 3rd Reich, New age/Religious revival). Or, consider the noble
(often just theoretical!) sentiments of the Enlightenment, the French and
American Revolutions: human liberty, equality and dignity and human
brotherhood.
In
other words (EJVS 7-3): if one thing has been constant in western thought, it
has been its constant change, some may say, fashion-bound nature.
As
the American form of Euro-American civilization is the presently dominant one,
I will mention American (counter-)examples in comparison with Indian ones
throughout my talk, --- as I am daily exposed to this civilization and view it
from a European (and Asian) point of view.
Its
dominant role in language, media, films, pop-culture, etc., not to speak of the
economy and corporate multi-nationals, indicates exactly the influences it
exports on the rest of the world, --- especially now in the age of global
internet and satellite TV. Its influence has already begun to destroy
traditional societies and will further exert its influence, even if some
countries in Europe (France) or Asia (China) try to resort, in various ways and
with various political backgrounds, to counteract its influence.
Its
dominance is so severe or felt so severely that a thoughtful Indian critic
(Paranjpe) wrote that India can teach America nothing -- except for (ritual)
spirituality. Which shows that we are all bound by our personal Maayaa and that
he just cannot recognize how much he is, well ... an Indian, for all of his
decades-long studies of America. (I will list other possible contributions of
India in the main part of my talk). He cannot discern the typical features of
his own civilization, -- just as I missed out on "Bildung" in German
civilization before I read L Dumont (see the 1998 conference) ...
Much of such characterization is hidden to
members of the Euro-American civilization but it becomes obvious to analysts,
especially so when we explore how one civilization views another.
This
is comparatively little done and should be a focus of our discussions. We then
will discover the same kind of prejudices ("Middle country,
madhyadesa", barbarians etc.) as in the standard European analysis of
India or the "Orient".
We
have, by now, come to recognize: there is no simple binary oppositions of
Euro-American civilization as 'materialistic' and of the Indian as 'spiritual',
of East/West, or we have noticed that the myth of European rationality carries
only that far, based as it is on an ultimately Judaeo-Christian foundation and
the appropriation of Greek thought.
Both
stereotypes need to be overcome, the Euro-American (Eurocentric) one and the
other culture-specific ones (about which more in a moment). Such myths were
perhaps once necessary, in Neolithic and Classical times, as to define oneself
against the Other, the "uncivilized outsider", the barbaroi, who were
threatening at the gates. But no longer in a global age.
In order to achieve such a balanced point of
view, we have to use the exo-endo approach which I have discussed to some
extent in our meeting of 1998. Which I will try to emulate here. As I said,
having lived on 3 continents and being in constant discussion in our
trilingual, multicultural household, helps. For, I am of course suffering, as
much as I may try to escape the fetters of my local upbringing, from my own
"personal maayaa" (illusion).
While
theoretical Indian attitudes towards the west are perhaps overstressing the
point, we all (East and West) are aware of a crisis in all of our
civilizations; we are not content with out traditional values, either due to
influx of outside ideas, or due to beginning doubt about our own civilizational
values.
How
should we then look at possible contributions fro other cultures, in my case
especially India?
For those centered on India, we may look at
Indian reactions to Euro-Americanism and to possible Indian contributions to be
distilled from a (western) analysis of Indian civilization. We already have
seen that a prominent Indian critics does not see anything important in his
culture but spirituality. That, however, has not fed anybody yet. Man does not
live of bread alone, but he also does not live of Yoga (some spiritual
entrepreneurs of course excluded).
I
think it is better to start with a "common sense" approach in trying
to ferret out the possible contributions of the Indian civilization. After
trying out several listings, I found that it is perhaps most advantageous --and
appropriate -- to start with indigenous categories that have been gradually
developed over the past 2000 years or so.
These
are the well-known concepts of
・ 4 aims of life (purusaartha)
・ 4 stages in life (caturaasrama).
The four aims in life are
dharma-artha-kaama-moksa,
which can roughly be translated as
"religion" (more about that in a moment!), "material
success", "sexual desire", "emancipation (from this
world)". The four stages in life are: brahmacaarin, grhastha,
vaanaprastha, sannyaasin, roughly translated as "student, householder,
retiree, renouncer/ascetic".
I
will discuss these as far as they are applicable to our task today.
Dharma
is perhaps the most obvious point to start with, as it encompasses virtually
all of the spiritual aspects of Indian culture, the Ueberbau to use Marx's
term. Often translated 'religion', it really defies all translation (see 1998
conference) as it covers everything from customs and incidental and general
beliefs to rituals, societal set-up and duties, court procedures, and to the
laws that govern the actions of the forces of nature, the gods and the
universe. All of this obviously is interconnected. Such a term, that cannot be
translated into any European language, or Japanese for that matter, but which
comes close to O. Egyptian ma'at, and perhaps Chinese li /Japanese ri,
certainly is not meant for "export", as it would mean to adopt the
whole of the Indian world view. Nevertheless, even the mentioning of this term
stresses that we have to deal with the whole culture, not just the superficial
civilizational or technological aspects of it.
However,
it also subsumes the following items that may be taken into account for
adaptation.
A
construct such as that of Dharma, mentioned above, provides a "feeling at
home" in a fixed, ordered universe and society, the rules of which are
spelled out at great length in the receptive texts (Dharmasutra) -- not a
"Geworfenheit". Dharma thus includes a home for us in many ways, both
in nature and culture/society. The first certainly is an aspect of Indian
civilization that is much more prominent in India (and Japan) and in
Europe/America.
Nature:
There is a close connection of humans with nature. We are part of nature, whether
we are Hindus, Buddhist or Jainas. Unlike in Judaeo-Christian thought, humans
are not different from nature but an integral part, they are not destined to
'govern' and dominate' it but to live in it as harmonious part. This is nothing
new to a Japanese audience, but it may still strike Euro-Americans as overly
'romantic'.
However,
with dwindling supplies of raw materials and impending global climate change,
we now come to appreciate this point much more than our ancestors in the past
two centuries did. The present American fascination with "the Earth"
is, at least in part, paralleled and fueled by an understanding of Native
American (Amerindian) attitudes towards nature -- attitudes that are not
Judaeo-Christian.
Related
is the problem of sustainable growth. While we have seen, until just about now,
a 'theory', if not an irrational belief in the theory of continuing growth that
was only nipped slightly during the 1974 oil crisis, other cultures do not se
or stress the continuing process of growth in the same way. While in the west,
the 'pursuit of happiness' seems closely linked to material progress and
creation of wealth, there are attitudes that do not stress this in the same
way.
I
remember well how my Turkish High School teacher told us, to our surprise that
in his Anatolian home town, shop keepers or artisans would close their shop for
the day if they felt they had earned "enough for today" and would
send on prospective customers to their neighbors who dealt in the same
products. This distance from the pressure to increase profits and from the
general rat race needs to be evaluated along with the rule of some Islamic
banks to charge zero % interest. Once it is realized that our resources are
limited, we have to make use of such experiences and attitudes to find new
avenues to sustainable economy and growth areas that do not permanently damage
our remaining resources and environment.
Another
important point of Indian world view is that of our being born with a
primordial obligations or guilt, as seen in several cultures. This influences
our behavior towards the world and society from the very start. If we assume,
as in the Judaeo-Christian tradition that our life is governed by a primordial
fall form grace, or that we are, as in India, born with three obligations
(rna), those towards the gods, ancestors and primordial poets, sometime
extended to our teachers, we have a completely different outlook. Christians
must strive to overcome that primordial guilt even though they may belief that
they have been remedied by Christ's death. "Sin" always looms large
and people are susceptible to fall back into sin. Their outlook towards life is
governed by expectations towards death and life after death.
Indians
do not have that kind of problem. Though they are bound by the 'three
obligations', they can service them, as they see fit, within certain ritual
boundaries. They do not have feel to be guilty and can freely choose and pursue
the three or four aims in life about which I will speak presently. There is no
Pope and no built in guilt complex to guide them; they can even give up rituals
altogether and choose to become renouncers.
In
Japan, too, there is no primordial guilt as the primordial misdeed of our
ancestors, in case the divine "Adam and Eve", Izanagi and Izanami,
has resulted in a misbirth that was abandoned, Moses-like on a reed float. The
creation of the other gods and the human descendants does not suffer from the
Christian guilt complex. What a spiritual relief! (Of course, Japanese society
has a way to overate other obligations, but they are human-made and one can
escape them, as in India, by becoming hermit or monk). There is an always
present, latent freedom in this.
Closely
related to this attitude is the Buddhist, Chinese (and German) attitude of
"keep striving!" during one's lifetime. We have the prospect of
perfecting us until old age, always being on the way to learn more or reach
highest spiritual levels. That this similar goal exist in there entirely
different societies is in itself remarkable.
The
details of course differ a lot: the Buddhist one aims at spiritual perfection
the release from the recurrent rebirths in this world, the Confucian one as
acquiring old age wisdom, the German one strives for "Bildung", a
well-formedness inspired by Goethian classical attitudes that looks for a
balance of mind and soul, of intellect, learning, art, emotion, etc.
The
concept of 'keep striving' captures, I believe, an important, if not one of the
most important human traits: our curiosity for ever new, better (and more
spiritual) experiences. This trait is not equally encouraged in all cultures we
deal with in this project.
It
sometimes takes other expressions, such as, the classical Indian, or Japanese
and Greek attitudes towards beauty and purely cultural refinement, such as the
Indian ideal of a sahrdaya who can 'feel with' the concepts and emotions (rasa)
embodied in classical drama and art, or the Greek striving for beauty, or the
Japanese attitude towards complex art forms such as No (or the tea ceremony) -
which is in itself very similar in concept to that of medieval India
(Abhinavagupta).
Perfection
takes another from in the Japanese concept of excelling in one's work, whether
it is a hobby or one's job. This is of course diametrically opposed to the
American quick buck attitude of 'hands-on' training and so-called customer
service, which means dialing through a maze of computerized phone numbers for
minutes on end, until one reaches a human. We can no longer learn such
perfection from India, where one artisan explained to me when we pointed out a
fault in his product: "a machine makes no mistakes, humans do." Well,
one would not sell such product in Japan, a concept he could not grasp. To him,
perfection is not an aim, but simply to survive and to make money.
There
still is another important attitude that shapes our perspectives towards daily
life, that of repetitive action and ritual. Without going into details of the
benefits of any repetitive action and recitation for humans (H. Benson) and
certain animals (K. Lorenz), it may be said that the structuring of our daily,
monthly and yearly life by rituals has a particular soothing effect on us, and
that it also binds us socially.
India
is of course famous for being, as Indians say, a 'ritual-ridden' society. I
found that even more strongly developed in the Newar society of the Kathmandu
Valley, where almost everything from morning till evening and from birth to
death is accompanied by minor rites and some major rituals. One cannot get up
without already having to perform certain morning rituals, to be followed by
what we in the west facetiously call morning rituals (washing, shaving, etc.)
In some cases, such as that of some Tantric priest I knew, this continued from
early morning, at 5 am., till about 10 a.m., when the man finally came down
from his ritual chamber to his 'living room', stretched and relaxed and asked
me for my reason to see him.
If we do not have these religious
rituals, we invent others. I was surprised to see how much ritualistic Holland
was, when I lived and taught there. Again, we see a proliferation of ritual,
from the mid-morning coffee brake to bringing certain cakes to the office after
childbirth, to elaborate Ph.D. ceremonies and a tendency to install even more
of such ceremonies for every new degree invented by the bureaucracy.
Other
such "rituals" include the Newar communal meals of the joint family
and of a group of worshippers, and many festivals that punctuate each month and
the year. Most of this is entirely missing in America: there is no family
lunch, hardly a dinner, and there also is no communal office lunch that may
cement the identity of this group; instead, one disappears to "grab a
bite' and to continue working. Our West German colleagues who had moved to
former East Germany were shocked to see, Americanized as they are, how East
Germans celebrated their lunch: putting away things, spreading the table cloth,
unpacking their lunch, eating together, -- while the Western secretary quickly
ate a sandwich sitting at her computer... I do not even begin to describe the
elaborate French or Italian lunches and siestas. When we eat together in the
US, it is for a "business breakfast / lunch".
Such
non-religious rituals, to which we may also add such performances as the tea
ceremony, obviously fulfill a need in humans for repetitive, regulated action
with an assumed attached "higher" meaning. Maybe this is what we need
in this age of post-individual/communal religion where every one chooses, new
age-like, what suits him or her best. (We now also see a temporary resurgence
of religion in various cultures, from the US to the Mid-East to the Falun Gong
and to Japanese sects. Such reactions against enlightenment, positivism,
'endless' progress, computerization which has created a new class of shamans,
have occurred before; they are generally to be seen as a sign of individual
weakness: the new complexity of life lets certain people take refuge in old
certainties...)
But
which of the cultural values discussed so far is to be recommended? All of them
are a way of looking for fulfillment in ones' life. And, we can learn from all
of them. They help to overcome the boredom of the daily job, the rat race, the
repetitiveness of daily, monthly, yearly chores.
In
sum, what these few examples, based on or connected with Dharma, already
indicate is that Indian as well as several other civilizations look for
balance, for a well-roundedness in the development of human beings, not for the
current over-specialization (Fachidioten), and also not of the extremes and
constantly changing moods and fashions, or even the left-right,
cerebral-emotional, etc. extremes that we have so frequently seen in
Euro-American cultures.
What,
then, should we look for in the value systems of other civilization? A new
"Classicism"? (like Goethe's balance of soul and intellect), between
individual and society, between family, local community and the state, and
finally between smaller and larger states?
Returning now to the values taught by Indian
Civilization about the Individual, and the indigenous expression that this
takes, we must notice that this is expressed by the terms, already mentioned,
of the four aims in life and the four stage in life (aims of life, purusaartha,
stages in life, caturaasrama). The four stages in life obviously should begin
with childhood - but here we draw a blank. It is not counted, and for a good
(Indian) reason.
Children
before school, are not yet real members of society as boys (not girls) at age 7
get initiated into Hinduism. I leave aside the other aspects of childhood: the
preference for boys and their being totally dependent on and completely spoiled
by their indulgent mothers, while girls have to work form early on, take care of
their siblings, etc. Traditionally, there is no education for girls. All these
are aspects not to be emulated, and thus not important for our survey. One
important outcome of this system, is, that children are automatically taken
care of by their elder siblings and by other members of the extended family.
There is no isolation and no need for pre-school, Kindergarten, but there also
is little contact with children from other sections of society, other castes,
-- relations that are so important for early socialization, something that is
established, with us, in pre-School.
When
it comes to initiation and entering school, boys are supposed to follow the
"brahmacarin'" ideal of study, that means they have to be sexually
abstinent until they leave school, and concentrate only on their studies for
the next 12 years or so.
Even
when reaching puberty, they traditionally do not study or interact with girls
of their age, which has certain advantages as far as study is concerned. In the
US, in fact, some are discussing now whether separation the sexes in school, at
least during puberty, is not a better way to follow. "Traditionally"
in America, these years of "middle school' are regarded as basically lost
for study, "while the hormones play themselves out."
However,
initially at least, the emotional side of boys and teenagers was not neglected:
There was the institution of Vraatya, when the students were out of school for
about half a year and were roaming the country side, banding together with an
elected leader and some promiscuous young women, and put pressure on settled
people, and thus gathered cattle for themselves, as to have a start capital
when they would marry.
Obviously
this reminds of some of the hooligans and youth gangs of our times. Apparently
there is a need for young men to explore and discover themselves in this
fashion. However, there is no "institution" now for this that is
recognized by society. In Euro-American societies, certainly, precisely this is
the attraction of such groups which are anti-nomian. The problem is that
parents, school etc., frequently try to suppress such expressions (with rules
of behavior, dress code, as the case may be) and do not recognize that this is
a passing phase in boys' development. In Japan, as you are aware, boys and
girls play out such urges during the weekends in tolerated gatherings in public
parks etc. My feeling, watching my son growing up in the American system, was
that they have taken out the fun of growing up, going against established
authority etc. inside the system (such as school), by overregulation.
In
the traditional Indian systems, however, there is a strong respect for one's
teacher, the guru, a respect that is also seen in other Asian countries,
especially those influenced by the ultimately Indian religion, Buddhism. A guru
is more than a (badly ) paid school teacher; he has the role of both an ersatz
father and absolute authority in scholarly and spiritual matters; he thus
combines the role of the Greek mentor and the actual teacher. While his
influence is overly strong in Asia, Euro-American civilization certainly is in
need of a reconstitution some of the teacher's status and respect. In the US
this is totally lacking: teaching is just a (not well paid) job like any other,
and professors are at best known for the likelihood to blow up their labs.
A
teacher, of course, takes care of our children, the future of our nation, and
thus of our own. This is not understood, instead, there is a general malaise of
the school system. In College and University one does not get a broad-based
education either, but studies a few token subjects (e.g., in the Harvard Core
system) and then, specialized knowledge. All of this is "pumped in"
to a useless, great and detailed amount, --similar to the Indian system of
learning by rote-- both in High School as well as in College, where everyone
only learns for the exams. The joy of discovery just is not there. The best one
can expect from such a system is Fachidioten, not well-rounded persons. Even at
Universities, there is continuous "dumbing down". What is missing is
the realization that simple learning of information means very little: it is
the insight into the structure of scholarship, its methods and its critique
that matters. This is at best taught in graduate school, not in High School and
hardly in College. But, it is this process of inquiry and critique that allows
to develop simple information into insight and understanding. In sum, we see
mechanical assimilation of data transmitted by teachers on auto-pilot, by
equally robotized students.
Further
there is no giri-ninjo. To my amusement, students here talk to us of "I
have respect for you" but, as so often in the US, this is just for show:
they do not practice it. Instead, the ideal is an impersonal relationship,
based on cold numbers derived form interminable 'tests' and
"quizzes". That means, one can be 'objective'. Few ask what these
tests are about: more detailed, but useless knowledge that is soon forgotten.
Have numbers, will judge. No attention is paid to the emotional and spiritual
upbringing of the student, just to rote type learning and to regurgitating such
knowledge at the push of a button -- until the next test.
Much
of this is also seen in India and some of it in Japan with its famous pressures
of the exam system. (The redeeming factor in the US is, that, due to the
general mobility in location and in jobs, one always has another chance, one
can redo one's study in a different context, school or University).
Typically,
as we shall see, the items described, like many aspects of the now much
imitated American system, go against any personal relationship; instead one
talks of "professionalism". This is stressed at all levels, from
school to university to work! It is just a code word for leaving all emotions
by the side and act according to a pre-set code of abstract and practical
rules. There is no judgment of relations or persons, no friendship, just
"professionalism'. We will return to that then again several times.
In sum, a reevaluation of the Indian
guru system would do western civilization a lot of good. It would lead to
balanced, more rounded young people than the products of the much touted and
imitated American system.
There
is another aspect of study that escapes us altogether these days. In India,
whether you go to a Hindu or a Buddhist teacher, he has to teach for free. One
may give a gift at the end of study but not a regular payment. While this is
not practicable today --no teacher has possession of farm land that takes care
of his income-- the spirit behind this is something we have to ponder.
Transfer
of knowledge, and education in general, should be free for members of a certain
society, as it is the duty of that society to take care of its youth that will
sustain it in the future. In the now spreading American system, it is not
society (the state) but the parents who have to pay for their children's'
education -- and that cost is rising by the year. It has well surpassed
$100,000 for a general college education by now, and scholarships are not a as
plenty as one may think. In sum, it is a parent-enslaving system.
In
Europe and elsewhere things still are much different. In Austria, it cost one
of our students $50 per year for health insurance and study, that is less than
a decade ago; and the German supreme court just has defeated a move to let
students pay for anything that exceeds 8 or 9 semesters of study. The 'new'
American model simply contradicts a basic human right, that of education, and
as it is based on the ability to pay, it also defeats the basic American (or
traditional Chinese) idea of meritocracy. It is, in fact, a curious mixture of
influence peddling (alumni), parent's money, and scholarly merit
(scholarships). In other words, it perpetuates the present crude capitalist set
up.
In
sum, we have to find a way back to the ideals of learning for all well prepared
and talented students and let them develop --free of financial constraints-- to
the best of their individual ability as to achieve true social equity, free of
gender, race, economic and other constraints, for all members of a given
society.
In
our emerging knowledge-based society, learning is becoming life long,
continuous learning which is now spreading as "continuing education"
world wide, again at often extra-ordinary costs. The curious thing is that the
cost of transmitting information and knowledge in modern technological fashion
has continued to decrease (by several hundred percent) during the past two
decades. However, not unexpectedly, some universities have tried to restrict
their professors and others have begun to cash in on that "new
market". However, there is some hope (such as in the recent MIT move to
open internet classes) that all will have an access to internet information and
learning.
Finally,
returning to the spiritual side of study, it is perhaps well-known by now that
old Greek ideal of 'know yourself' has been at the forefront of Indian
imagination, perception and philosophy for more than 2500 years, since about
the time of the Buddha. It has taken many forms and shapes, but it can be said
that, with Paranjpe:
"The technologies of self-realization
have been perfected in India over a period of thousands of years. These
traditions are not merely ossified, confined to sacred texts or esoteric
manuals, but are living and vibrant even today. They provide basic orientations
on life's most important questions: who are we? Where do we come from? What is
the purpose of life? And where are we going, not only as individuals or groups,
nations or cultures, but also as a species."
What he does not say, is of course that this
effort has for the same time been closely tied to the spiritual quest of
leaving the endless cycle of rebirths. Those who do not believe in this Indian
construct, we can still make use of the ideas, line of questioning, and
techniques developed in India over these millennia. Obviously, much of it has
been exported, via Buddhism to the rest of Asia, and more recently as Yoga and
similar techniques to the west. Whatever its physiological basis (Herbert
Benson, Mind and Body Inst. of Harvard), this old technique, which may even go
back to the Indus civilization of 2600-1900 BCE, has been adapted in the West
in a locally appealing and tolerated way. We can however, agree with Paranjpe
when he says;
"selfhood that comes from
self-knowledge. It is not just a product, but a process that involves a
continuous effort at autocreation,"
but this can as well just involve us as
beings existing here for just a short time. He has adapted his question from
western philosophy (Kant), just as we may use some of the Indian (or Zen)
techniques. They all help in achieving the goals of a more balanced and
well-rounded person. Certainly, medieval Europe, too, had some techniques of
meditation, had its mystics, and had a lot of prayer -- still much practiced in
America. But all of them, prayer excepted, were not prominent in Euro-American
civilization. Their introduction is due to the influence of Indian civilization
exerted during the colonial period and later.
It
must be realized, however, that for all of its popularity in the west, Yoga and
similar techniques are not necessarily a sign of a growing spirituality or a
striving for balance. Frequently, they are just another health fad, just as the
other presently popular means such as jogging, aerobics etc. At least, they
remind us of the Roman principle mens sana in corpore sano. We may thus
evaluate the current trend as both somatically and spiritually healthy.
Turning now to the second prominent aim in
life, Artha or wealth, it must be stressed that it 'logically follows that of
studentship, as Indian boys were supposed to marry soon after the end of
school, at age 19 (or earlier for non-Brahmins).
Wealth
has been espoused by Indian civilization from its very beginnings (a great
number of cows, then), --unashamedly, we would perhaps say in East Asia, from a
Confucian frame of mind. And, from an Indian one, the stress on wealth is
perhaps surprising, too, as it seems to contradict the spiritual outlook
stressed so far. However, to each his own. One may elect to pursue the aim of
wealth alone, if it suits one better than other pursuits in life. There is that
much of freedom built into system (just as that of choice of gods on wishes to
worship: istadevata)
The
unabashed search for 'riches' and their praise would sound very much like
capitalism but it is not, as it is ultimately tempered by some religious
constraints (see below), such as the duty to give back to one's dependents (the
king to his subjects, the landlord to employees, etc.) And even with
single-minded pursuit of wealth the other aims in life loom in the background,
to be taken up at a later time, if one so wishes.
This
therefore is not, the Euro-American unlimited and unhindered 'pursuit of
happiness', that is only hemmed in by the rights of others (such as neighbors),
or in the US, frequently only by law suits). The western system works well for
the upper and middle class people, but what about the others and their access
to food, clothing, housing, education etc. These are not enshrined as basic
rights in (Euro-)American consciousness, though some of them are actually
practiced in Europe. Not so in America, where there is no such right in society
to have food, cloth, housing. On the contrary, each person is supposed to have
been responsible for his/her own status (somewhat like the outcome of an Indian
rebirth!), though this clearly is not always the case, especially when one
comes from underprivileged areas and classes. Yet, the ultimately Calvinistic
and Puritan thinking of "god was good to me" and "god's own
country" still pervades everything in America. Only widows and orphans
could be legitimately poor... After all, as one of the presidents (Harding?)
around 1920 said, "America's Business is business." Like most aspects
of American civilization this kind of attitude goes against personal relations:
the homeless must be taken care of by "social care specialists" in a
"professional" way. It does not matter what their individual story
is. Another "case."
Again,
we may ask whether this model of pursuit of wealth and supposedly, of
happiness, is a model to be followed by the rest of the world, as it is now
preached. Or, whether we cannot learn from the equally unashamedly business-
and wealth-oriented Indian approach that other things in life also must play a
role. In addition, there are of course other, more socially oriented models
such as the tempered capitalism of Europe and Japan, with its greater attention
to social concerns, the general good of the people, provision of a safety net
with general health insurance, old age pension, etc. These are items that still
are not a right in America, in fact several ten out of 280 millions are not
covered at all.
One
may also think of other alternative models, such as the zero percent loans in
some Islamic states, or of the attitude of just necessary gains ("I have
earned enough for today"). Or, when facing the problems of limited natural
resources and a still growing world population, we may ponder the propagated
constant growth as compared to a more restrained, technologically driven
improvement. India did not have to face these questions in ancient times and
during the classical period as there always was enough new land to clear and as
its economy otherwise depended very much on exchange and profit-oriented long
distance trade. Today, however, we may reflect whether a non-growth policy is
not better for the future, or perhaps one with a different kind of growth, in
areas that have been neglected so far, such as repair of ecological damage and
prevention of further damage. Traditional knowledge in various developing
societies may show the way to solve some of the local problems.
The next major item in life in the Indian
scheme is that of kaama 'sexual desire'. On may wonder, nowadays, whether it is
a legitimate or sustainable aim in life just to follow that path -- but then
there have been such persons in our living memory: sono mille e tre. I am glad
to be able to report a not so recent Harvard Ph.D. in Sanskrit, who has
publicly claimed that in the New Yorker. Maybe it was his psychological
inclination that sent him forth and kept him studying...
Seriously
speaking, the pursuit of sex has been regarded as just another aim in life, for
some just limited to the stage of lief following marriage, for others much less
limited. There is after all, a classical text such as the Kamasutra (and
others) that teaches everything that a hetaira or a man about town (or a king)
had to know, from music and poetry to sexual compatibility of various types of
men and women, to the technicalities of various types of kisses and love bites,
and I keep to polite discourse here.
In
other words, this important part of our nature is not excluded or subdued as it
so often was in the European history of the past 2000 years. Even after the
so-called sexual revolution of the Sixties, Christian morale, if no longer of
the Victorian type, still is prevalent. We usually overlook the fact that
pre-modern India (or Japan) had standards that were quite different from what
now is regarded as the bourgeois norm (and that of the state). In India, people
now frequently deny that the extremely erotic carving on some of their temples
mean just what they are, and instead invent all sorts of esoteric meanings. The
same is true for (religious) texts that describe elaborate sexual practices or
use such imagery: it all has to be 'symbolical' now, while one still can meet
Tantric person, say, in Kathmandu, who practice what the texts tell.
In
short, Christian morale, and its Victorian influence still is felt across the
globe, in new acculturated forms. We certainly would do go to get away from
such narrow views of the human being, but, at the same time, also from
Hollywood style permissiveness. Again, what we have to look for is a new
classical balance. Perhaps one somewhat similar to that seen in Old Greece,
where all we taken care for (except for the sequestered housewives!), from a
(homosexual) relationship between teacher/student -- now impossible to imagine
and forbidden by law-- to permissiveness before and after marriage, a well
established system of --frequently well educated- Hetairas as in old India or
Edo time Japan. Certainly, it is time to get the church and/or the state out of
this private business, and let society as such decide what it can tolerate and
what not.
This
incidentally, has been the actual practice in India, in spite of some strict
proscriptive 'law books' such as the famous Manu-Smriti. For example, a
Kashmiri king in c. 850 CE forbade a particular Tantric sect when people
objected against their naked adherents that were covered by just one blue
cloak. The decision made, after long debate, by local priests and pandits was: "traditional
religion is what the people think it is."
Though
the Indian classical period was characterized by much general permissiveness,
similar to Heian or Edo Japan, many details are not that encouraging: marriage
was and still is deceived just be the will of the parents who select the
partners, with the added 'help' of astrologers, and while following strict
caste relationships. (Some guidance by parents, strange as it sounds today,
probably would not be a bad thing in Euro-American culture, though. The divorce
rate is now above 50% in the US. But then, who wants to listen?) Curiously
enough these marriages usually are very stable, and my friends tell me that,
after a while, real love develops between the partners. You may have heard
similar accounts from Japan.
Contrast
this again with certain American attitudes that are astonishing even to
Europeans. Again, for all of the romantic love evoked by Hollywood, marriage or
even simply living together is a temporally limited option that seems to work
as long a as "business" interests coincide. People "invest"
in their relationship; the girl friend maybe a "high maintenance"
person, that is someone who requires a lot of time, effort and money. People
"build up" something together, an apartment, a house, etc. It all is
very materialistic and business-like, just as so many other aspects of the
present American civilization. This attitude is nicely shown in the initial
"negotiations" that precede any (more or less) permanent
relationship: one has to negotiate and agree on a "date", where the
man has to "buy a dinner" for his prospective girl friend. What kind
of exchange value inherent in this dinner? Hollywood films will show you.
Finally, marriage may follow if the combined (financial) "net worth"
of the man is up to expectation. In short, we should not joke too much about
the pecuniary negotiations underlying arranged marriage in India (or
elsewhere).
Further,
in India it is regarded as the duty of parents to produce at least one son to
continue the lineage (for ancestor rituals, ever since pre-Buddhist Vedic
times.) Daughters are seen as a financial liability because of the exorbitant
dowries that have to be paid now. Many female embryos are detected now by
modern scanning technology and are simply aborted. In India and China combined
some 20 million women are missing, as reported by my colleague A. Sen on the
simple basis of statistics. --- All these are items that we do not want to
imitate.
Due
to the stress on producing a son, logically, homosexuality is not seen as
morally bad -- just as "useless" as one ancient texts says:
"because there is no production" (JB), an attitude that differs
remarkably from that of the Euro-American and other cultures.
A
few words, finally about the role of women. As we could see already, the
attitudes towards them are vary a lot within Indian culture. On the one hand,
we have or rather had, highly regarded Hetairas, one the other, women are said
by Manu to be 'protected': as daughters by their fathers, as wives by their
husbands, and even as widows by their sons. In other words, they are controlled
throughout their lives, and they are mostly shut up at home, where they take
care of the children. Shut up, as all women are seen as sexually fickle and
potentially dangerous.
While
western society has often worshipped women, since the High Middle ages, Indian
civilization, however, has a high regard of them only in their role as mothers.
To quote a recent speech by the Indian Vice-President: "The best symbol of
female values that has been created by nature is in the form of 'mother'.
Mother is 'creativity' and 'innovation' personified in solving human problems
in the family. She represents excellence, morality, equality not in material
terms but as a living cultural symbol practicing these values ... It is more
specific than the word culture itself. " Indian men love, are fixated and
overdependent on their mothers, but she is also feared (like the goddess Kali)
and she does take charge (like Mrs. Gandhi who 17 years after her death still is
regarded by 41% as the best prime Minster of India). In Japanese terms: she is
Kannon and Fudoo at the same time.
The
actual role of mothers differs much across cultures; in many modern societies
they play a major role in the (supervision of the) education of the children,
managing the family, etc. I do not want to go into all the problems involving
work by both husband and wife but perhaps a closer look at how Indian women
manage their families, within the limits they still have to work in, would do our
society some good. We begin to see, it seems, a trend now 'back to the family'
and to there role as wives and mothers. Japan, of course so far hardly had this
kind of problem to contend with. Which balance do we have to look out for the
future?
Within the given Indian framework, the
striving for release from the fetters of this world, the threat of recurrent
rebirth, plays a great role, though this is sometimes overrated when it comes
to the beliefs of the common people who merely want "to go to
Heaven." Release from this world and from rebirth, moksa, still is a major
factor in people's imagination and outlook on life, as the see renouncers such
as yogis and sannyaasis all around them.
As
mentioned, it is one outstanding feature of Indian civilization, that everyone
has the perfect freedom to pursue one's spirituality, irrespective of local
religions, sects, the opinion of priests and even of society at large. One only
is required to a certain type of behavior, such as not killing cows or not
touching someone else's food, one may dress as a monk or yogi -- or not at all,
one may perform odd rituals or ascetic practices almost everywhere, and one may
certainly pursue one's spiritual goal as one sees fit. One may believe in one
god, many, or none whatsoever, one may worship and pray to them or not at all,
and one may discuss such beliefs in public. As mentioned, there are few
restrictions, such as the Kashmiri case discussed earlier where society decided
what it could tolerate and what not.
Therefore,
if a person feels that he or she has done her share to perpetuate society, to
bring up the children, they may 'retire', basically in two traditional ways,
either as a an ascetic couple, or singly, as total renouncers.
The
first, the Vaanaprastha or 'forest hermit' stage is regarded as the third stage
in one's life ever since the middle ages. It is, after marriage, a voluntary
stage where a couple would retire to a nearby wood or copse and live simply,
while still performing the generally required daily and yearly rituals of
Hinduism. While simple retirement has always being an option, this stage is
more of a construct and has never been very popular. Usually older people
retire within their own family and just hand over the handling of daily affairs
to their children, -- if at all.
The
existence of this stage, however opens the question, now frequently put in
modern civilizations, of retirement. In the traditional joint family, such
retirement is made easy as the grandparent's generation is taken care of by
their sons and daughters-in-law , even if they choose to live apart. As this
system has long broken down in Euro-American civilization and is now weakened
in Japan, it must be asked how to take care of one's old people. They cannot
just be shunted in to old people's homes that are often mismanaged, cruel and,
anyhow, prohibitively expensive. A new role for grandparents is now being
deliberated, preferably one that gives them fulfillment though continuing
involvement with their sons/daughter's families -- or if they rather wish to do
so, in a new, mutually interdependent way with other people, older or younger
as they case may be.
The
problem of a growing senior population also opens up the question that of age
groups in general. Some other societies have institutionalized such age groups
to a much lager degree than the Indian civilization, for example the Maasai.
One has to pass from one stage to the other by certain rituals and tests and
trials. Much of Eurasian (Laurasian) mythology actually personifies it by its
recurrent myths of the four ages of the world (as a living body, Witzel: Mother
Tongue 2001). In Euro-American civilization we have by and large lost the sense
of age groups, though some are classified in popular speech as such : seniors
(and various circumlocutions and euphemisms: "golden years, the
elderly" ...)
In
fact, it is very hard in America to grow old: people usual do not want to do so
and try to avoid its signs by all means -- though it is of course unavoidable.
They try to circumvent it in speech, with plastic surgery, dress, behavior,
etc. to a degree that lets even Europeans shake their head, not to speak of
other cultures. There is a virtual cult of youth. One reason is that there is
no respect for elderly and old people. They are slow in traffic, in the way, --
and remind one of one's own old age and death. And that is a taboo word: nobody
dies; one 'passes on,' gets the big "C" and there is 'transition',
etc. The ancient Greeks may have feared old age because it incapacitated them,
spoiled their sense of beauty and balance, here, the fear is a very visceral
one.
Yet,
people have to learn how to age, how to grow old with dignity. This is much
less a problem in Europe and in other cultures, but due to the spread of
American "ideas" and "ideals" by film and television, this
new attitude will have an increasing effect abroad as well. As we all will live
much longer now, well into our eighties, it is time to think about the role of
the old generation and a fulfilled life for them. Obviously, westerners do not
want to retire to Walden Pond or old people's homes if they can avoid it. What
then? How to help them to lead a fulfilled life in old age?
The
second option open to old people in the Indian civilization is that of a world
renouncer, a sanyaasin.
The
ideal of a sannyaasin, as ascetic or monk is found in many Asian countries , in
all Hindu and all Buddhist societies and in the institution of Taoist recluses.
In the west we may compare the related phenomenon of Christian monks and some
Islamic monastic orders. Though they all have different spiritual backgrounds,
the idea of retirement from daily life is common to all. However, the idea of
moksa or release from the cycle of rebirth is tied to Hinduism and Buddhism
alone and is, of course based on the very idea of the close link between
rebirth and karma (the force of one's actions in this world that will effect
one's next life). This is a philosophical and religious construct that
developed within older Indian religion as the outcome of Vedic thought only
about 500 BCE. It has been underlying all of subsequent Hinduism, Buddhism and
Jainism ever since.
Those
not belonging to this religious tradition have little to relate to it. They
will see no reason to be released from a cycle of rebirths if they believe in
just one life on earth or perhaps a life here followed by a stay in the
Christian/Muslim heaven. The Indo-centric view of a cycle of rebirths
(samsaara) thus will have to be overcome by a more global perspective. (Indeed,
in the literature of American Buddhists, one finds little reference to rebirth;
the stress is on this life time). Nevertheless, the idea of a temporal or
permanent retreat from Society is appealing even in Euro-American civilization.
But,
how can we leave society behind in the west if we do not want to become
Christian monks? It is even difficult in a credit card society where everyone
has a tax number. At best, one can imagine a hermit in the woods, without the
(respectful) social support so typical of Asia. (As one retired county official
in S. India once told me, he wanted to become a sanyaasin to "have proper
respect"). In the west, dropouts, who are not monks, have no respect; they
are regarded as 'hippies', useless, parasites or worse. Certainly, we have
large number of homeless people who drift from place to place.
Occasionally
a hermit will gain the respect of a local community, such as one who lived in a
wooded area in my own town, but this is rare. The there are some real hermits,
such a Vietnam veterans who have chosen to live in the forest of the
northwestern US, but such recluses are often viewed as strange, 'loners' and as
potentially dangerous (as some are indeed). At any rate, there is no support
system for such people. Citizens are just not willing to sustain such
"useless" people: in truly Puritan spirit, it will be said that they
"should work".
In
sum, how can the institution of recluses be 'exported' to non-Asian
civilizations? Apart from Christian monks and nuns, not until western
civilization accepts the spiritual value of single, extra-societal life. In the
meantime those who do not want the part of society merely can form their own
'support groups', communes, hippie-like communities with all of their own inherent
dynamics and problems.
In
Euro-American societies, one would perhaps rather have to ask how to balance
Asian moksa, release from this present life and the cycle of rebirths, with a
strictly temporal progression, from young adult to family life to old age, as
typically seen in India and the ideal of a constant self-improvement (Germany,
China) within this world, this society and even within a family?
Finally,
even as recluse, we in the west still would have to learn not just how to grow
old but also how to die. I remember the case of the father of a friend, a late
field marshal of Nepal, who went to the sacred river bank at the Pasupatinath
temple of Katmandu and waited for his death, receiving all his friends, saying
good bye , telling them so see them soon in the other world... This is could,
of course, also be the description of a Christian person, but perhaps for the
majority of Euro-Americans now, death has another meaning: it is just the end
of life, and that they cannot accept. One cannot even talk about it, except
when one is, e.g. the president of Soka Gakkai, who gave exactly that talk at
Harvard University in the Nineties.
The
last few items discussed obviously are quite individualistic, viewed from the
rather selfish point of view of self-emancipation, release of just oneself from
rebirth. The very institution of moksa and sanyaasin reveals one of the typical
contradictions of Indian mind: on the one hand, a stress on an all-pervading
influence of family and society on the individual, from school through
retirement, then, on the other hand suddenly an absolute freedom of choice of
what to do with the rest of one's life. In fact, the rather anti-social fact of
leaving one's wife and family behind, just to follow up one's own personal goal
of 'emancipation', suddenly does no longer count as directed against the joint
family who, after proper ritual, will accept this decision. Of course, it also
means that one ''officially' leaves society behind, is ritually 'dead' and
cannot return home any longer (that is without being 'reborn, initiated again
etc.)
It
really is in only in this last stage of life (which one actually can choose at
any moment, even as a young boy) that the individual asserts itself in Indian
civilization It typically is for the sake of self-redemption (albeit with the
help of a guru or the Buddha).
This
has been quite different, from Zarathustra's views onwards, in Zoroastrianism,
Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions where individual and personal
responsibility and morale first appeared. Ever since Zarathustra, one had to
decide constantly between 'good' and 'evil'; that point of view has informed
most of Western civilization.
Since
the stress in the past few sections has been on the individual, it is
appropriate to take a brief look at the society in the concluding section.
As
we have seen, an Indian individual is closely "guarded' or rather bound by
her or his relationships within the joint family and caste. To begin with, it
must be stressed that there is little if none of the concept of privacy so
stressed in Euro-American civilization Not only do people get born and die in
public, and they often die in full view of strangers on river banks (to reach
heaven). Early in the morning, people defecate in public view, in a row, along
railway lines or in specially 'designated' streets.
There
always is someone around to watch. As one Japanese colleague once told me:
people constantly look at you with big eyes. Well, and they even enter, as
happened to me, while I was sleeping in my room in a guest house, because they
had to do some worship there at 6 a.m. Letters will be taken from your hand
"What does it say?" And on and so forth. What about the American
teenager, shutting his/her private(!) room in front of father or mother, saying
"I need my privacy"? Well, there ain't any. One does not have any
private space within the family. The only privacy there may be is that of the
married couple in their bedroom, but then, they usually sleep with their small
children in between them. In this kind of situation strict rules of behavior
are expected: even a married couple is not allowed to hold hands in public
view, even that of just their own family.
In
this respect, an Indian joint family is much more obtrusive for the individual
than the family and society-oriented East Asian one. And these kind of values
obviously are not attractive to East Asian or Euro-American societies at all.
This
intrusiveness extends to other aspects of one's life as well. It is the joint
family that will make the decisions about one's study, choice of job, marriage,
foreign travel, etc. Younger people often complain about this, even in the US,
but are ultimately too weak to make their own decisions: "we had to give
in to our parents."
While
these more intrusive aspects of the Indian concept of the joint family
obviously are not attractive and will not (be able to) be emulated elsewhere.
However,
there are certain other aspects that are worth of thinking about, such as the
actual cooperation of 3-4 generations in a joint family, their mutual
interdependence and the automatic "life insurance" they provide for
workless or old people. As mentioned, the Indian transgenerational contract
even includes, much as in traditional China or Japan, the ancestors who are
worshipped and "fed," and they certainly are a source for continuing
traditions.
The
same mentality regulates the relationships between husband and wife, patron
(jajmaan) and client, employer and employee, King and subjects, between the
government and the people. There is no concept of 'thankfulness', just
obligation, duty (rna).
The
whole social set-up is well characterized by a few lines in a late Vedic, thus
pre-Buddhist text of c. 500 BCE that still is frequently quoted today:
"Speak the truth, behave according to
customs, carry out the (ritual) actions, do not neglect your recitations. After
you have given a gift to your teacher, do not cut off your family line....
Treat your mother, father teacher, guests like a god... (TU 1.11: satyam vada,
dharma cara, ... maatrdevo bhava....)
This sums up the parameters of an Indian
(male) person: to carry out rituals, produce (male) children, there is respect
for elders and teachers. This includes, as a matter of course, taking care of
them in their old age, which is, as we have seen, a problem for modern
technology-based societies. The role of this kind of trans-generational
contract between us and our parents and ancestors in Indian, Chinese as well as
in Japanese civilization certainly is worth of more detailed study by this
project. Our question then would be, how to balance the view of a Euro-American
or Near Eastern individual with this kind of South or East Asian family- or
society-based point of view. Especially to an American it may sound impossible.
Another
point that was mentioned in the lists of societal duties was that of guests who
have to be honored. This was already common as the old Indo-European concept of
guest friendship. This leads to the concept of friendship as such. Guest friendship
is based on exchange and often hereditary, as in old Greece. However, there
also are voluntarily friendships, established between any two individuals. Even
in modern Nepal they can still do so in a formal way by undergoing a ceremony
of becoming 'blood brother' (mith). As in oldest India, it is the worst offense
if they ever betray each other. This forms a welcome contrast to what we
experience in American Civilization, with its horror of no lasting friendship
and the lack of feeling of obligation which are so typical: Why is it so?
American culture simply does not know of the concept of friendship (the term
just means 'acquaintance', and these you can drop, tripp up as you please and
as local 'politics' demand.
In
short, we have to look at the positive aspect of binding two individuals
together by voluntary decision and to their keeping this kind of trust ... for
life. In South and in East Asian civilizations (Confucian or not), as well as
in larger parts of Europe, friendship based on mutual acceptance and trust
belong to the truly humane aspects of civilization, which we should emulate.
In
the same vein, there are traditional Indian socio-religious associations
(gosthika, guthi) that are especially well preserved in the Newar society of
the Kathmandu Valley. They are, in a way, similar to our professional
associations, but they go much beyond: the local society simply cannot function
without them. They create a web of interlinking connection that a person is
'woven' into, and which give him or her a 'home' and status. Our modern
associations are of course of a different kind. As we use(d) to joke in
Germany, it is a country of associations (Vereine): where someone may be
president of the local 'rabbit breeding society.' However, as a matter of fact,
in villages we have quite a number of such associations, from voluntary
firefighters to Christian associations, and one may observe similar groups
among the Italian immigrants of the Boston North End.
American
society, too, has a number of such organizations, though they play a
comparatively minor role in the larger cities: there is nothing such as a an
association connected with the festival of a local Shinto shrine in Japan, but
only some marching bands for occasion such a 4th of July. In sum, many of the
citizens of even the smaller and certainly of the large cities, where there is
very little sense of neighborhood, or of communitas (Turner) are deprived of
such social contact and re-assurance, and isolation is spreading. Instead it
is, as always, instructive to see how 'community' is used in America. During
the last few years, we have heard of such items as the "Harvard
community" (of ten thousand people who do not know each other?) or even of
the 'intelligence community' (CIA, FBI, etc.). What kind of 'communities' are
these and which interpersonal links do they establish? One may as well call
them 'corporations', but the euphemism, as is typical, is used instead.
On
the other hand, a beneficial aspect of all this anonymity is that newcomers are
easily accepted in America, something that cannot be imagined in caste-ridden
India, the region- and dialect-based Europe or the village/town ward based
Japanese society. Local and culture-centric bias is fairly easily overcome by
this attitude; the ideology, actually professed by common people is: "we
are all immigrants". Present day Europe and even Japan, with their growing
number of immigrants, certainly can learn something from this particular
attitude.
Local
Communities everywhere are 'centered', as it were, not only the type of
associations just mentioned but especially by local festivals. Many of them,
certainly in India, are religiously based and connected with local temples. The
same is true with Catholic Christian and Shinto festivals. Such events have many
functions, among which a division of time into small segments that are repeated
year by year. In the older civilizations, about every other month we have a
major festival (many of them concentrated, certainly, after the harvest when
one has more time at one's hands). They provide a rhythm to the year and
alleviate the boredom of daily chores. Apart from their originally religious
aspects, one has something to look for, and will meet old and new friends and
relatives. In Nepal I counted some 100 festivals in the relatively small valley
of Kathmandu (some 20 by 30 km square): that means, somewhere in the valley,
every third day something is 'happening'.
Again,
fairly little of this is left in America: only a few festivals such as
Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year, 4th of July survive and are celebrated. The
rest of the time people are 'hard' at work, with hardly a Sunday off or a just
a yearly one-week vacation.
Since
many or most of the elements listed so far are now missing in the US, there is
an increasing breakdown, of the family, of neighborhoods, and of associations,
relating in increasing loneliness and isolation of the individual. Typically,
we no longer find conversation but an exchange of monologues, and not just in
films that highlight this trait, but also in actual daily contact. On the other
hand, people desperately feel the need for contact and talk to you on the
subway, uninvited and unrestrictedly: within five minutes you will know their
whole life story, including their latest illness, divorce or job loss. Then,
you part as if you would never have met... The same happens, of course, on the
internet.
Clearly,
in our modern technological society, with its increasing isolation in front of
the computer screen, some sense of community is important enough to be
(re-)established, or if it is not yet lost, such as in Japanese neighborhoods,
it has to be maintained before they disintegrate into total anonymity.
A
last, important point in a study of Indian and other societies is that of
cooperation versus competition. It has become clear that Indian castes cement
loyalty and social compliance within their ultimately occupation-based groups.
Basically everyone seeks to make his living within the group they belong to.
There is some competition, and envy, of who has the highest status. One can
achieve that by financing important festivals or temples. On the other hand,
there is strong cohesion towards outsiders and anything that is regarded as
threat to one's community.
Compare
this with the principle of unbridled social competition built into the American
system that is now exported as the latest gospel around the world. This spirit
is instilled already at school. We have competitive elections for class
president, and courses in leadership right from the beginning, and the same
extends to learning and grades, and even to sports or an "art form"
called cheer leading. (Occasionally we even hear about crime in this
connection!) There is fierce competition for all such top positions and the best
spots as this will allow to get scholarships and entry into the better
colleges.
In
my high school, on the contrary, we still helped each other in our preparations
for our final exams; however, due to Americanization of the German education
system, much less so in the giant school complexes that were introduced in the
Seventies.
In
American schools, cheating is rampant as everyone has to appear or at last
style him/herself as 'the best.' And, so is the mendacity of teachers who write
recommendations. There seems to be nothing below "one of my two best
students in the past 10 years or so." This is (no longer) a merit-based
society but one built one unbridled competition with all the means (officially)
allowed artfully employed. Of course, the same plays out in business and even
in research (occasionally, with fake data reported). Personal advancement is
more important, in the last case, than healing patients. The opposite of
successful persons ("winners") are the 'losers", a term of
abuse. They often acquire additional epithets such as 'loner, nerd' etc.
Obviously,
this kind of societal set-up is not a social-minded one but one simply based on
ruthless personal advancement and profit. When it comes to the methods and
techniques that this sort of mentality generates in the business world, we have
the raw capitalism that is now propagated as the panacea of globalization.
There
is no concern for the employees, only when they are scarce and must be
attracted, or when they create a big publicity problem. Similarly, and there is
no need any longer to further specify this, there is no concern at all for the
local community, environment or the global effects, such as those on global
climate. When representatives of such business interests run a whole country,
we can only expect the worst. Unbridled competition cannot be the only model
for the 21st century.
With these general remarks I have entered
the realm of the overarching community, that of the state.
For India, the foundational texts talk
little of the state, simply as it was not yet in existence: at that time we
merely had tribal communities with occasional tribal confederations and elected
kings. Though already by the time of emperor Asoka (c. 250 BCE) an elaborate
administration with internal checks and balances, an elaborate spy system and
detailed rules for officials and subjects existed, this is even now not really
reflected in general consciousness. People still regard the king, just as the
local landlord, as superior who has to be given presents (in kind) and who has
the duty to give back (pratidaana). This cycle of exchanges keeps village
society going and is substituted by similar exchanges between guilds and local
government in towns. Everything is very much decentralized even now. As the
Moghul proverb of 350 years ago went "Dilli duur ast" (Delhi is far
away). There was until just now, little or no national consciousness, at best a
regional one of people speaking the same language (of which we have 17 official
ones!). This obviously is different for East Asia or Europe and America. It is
precisely in these countries that we also witness a rather intrusive role of
the State; in India things still are very local or regional. In addition, at
village and town ward/ guild level, we have traditionally had local
self-administration by notables (Panchayat). If they come into conflict with
the higher levels of administration there always was the means of peaceful
(ahimsaa type) protest, for example by public fasting or by Gandhi's preferred
method of civil disobedience. (It evokes violence from the other side, the
state, which then is morally defeated).
In
our modern technology-based societies this is something we can learn from.
Local interest always takes precedence before regional and national one. If one
can enthuse people locally, they many be willing to invest time and effort
beyond that as well. The old Japanese institution of village/ward and kuni
(han) may very well be a model. Some of the larger centralized countries indeed
think of decentralization now, and Europe it seems, is going that way too:
keeping much of its regional identities intact. In that way, people can better
relate, and do not feel as anonymous cogs/wheels in a machine. In this sense,
America is well organized into (small) towns, states and central government.
People can actively influence at least the local conditions, from traffics
rules and zoning to setting standards for local taxes or the local high school
(which as its own disadvantages). Some of these experiences need to be learned
by the centralized states.
Finally,
when it comes to the role of the state vs. the individual, the Euro-American
countries usually stress the points of universal human rights, such as freedom
of thought, speech -also in print or electronically- of religion, beliefs, of
peaceful public assembly, of settlement and movement, also across borders, and
so on. Some East Asian countries, typically those based on or influenced by the
tradition of a social theory such as Confucianism and Moism, have objected that
basic human rights should also include those of food, clothing and housing, and
education. As I have mentioned before, they have a point.
The
matter was nicely summed up by the Seventies/Eighties joke then heard in Nepal:
"In India you can run off your mouth as much as you like but you have
nothing to fill it; in China you can fill it but you have to shut up; in Nepal
-- neither nor." Well, things have changed since. Yet, the basic problem
remains. In American system there is no right for food, clothing and housing,
and education: though one may get food stamps, the rest is not guaranteed. In
Europe with its capitalism much tempered by socialist attitudes, virtually all
of this was guaranteed by the state since we all are regarded (tax paying)
members of our respective societies, -- that is, until some countries began
with cutbacks under the influence of the triumphalist American system.
In short, we should not see an
antagonism, as often portrayed, between the more society-oriented East Asian
set of values ("Asian values") and those of "personal
freedom" championed by the Euro-American civilizations. Both have value
and must be complimentary.
Some
may now regard Renaissance, Enlightenment (see above) and all that followed as
tainted by Euro-American colonialism and economic dominance. However, is such
transitory political, economic and cultural dominance always and completely
negative? Euro-American civilization and dominance was, by its very nature,
initially Eurocentric when it started out in the 15th and 16th centuries, but
the Euro(-American) version of civilization has been criticized for long
(Spengler, R. Schwab, etc.), that is by members of this civilization, and by
resident members for others civilizations (Said).
But
is it totally negative as such? It has liberated Europe and America from the
fetters of ecclesiastical constraints, and also from the absolute (royal)
Governments of the past centuries. And, it can do so for other civilizations,
especially the --presently-- rather intransigent Islamic one; it also can
highlight and critique the more severe fetters that strict Confucianism
requires for its subjects, and it certainly can bring relief from the
constricting social systems of caste and of other inequalities. Just as it has
released Euro-Americans from its 3-class system, the dominance of the (Judaeo-)
Christian belief system (and its successor ideologies such as Communism and
other totalitarian regimes), it can also bring relief from other dominant
belief systems, from Islam to the South and East Asian rebirth type belief
systems -- always, if members of these societies wish to accept such points of
view so different for their own.
Is
the "Europeanization" of the world (Halbfass) intrinsically bad? Not
so, if one compares some past cases of cultural or political dominance.
Obviously, France has survived 400-500 years of Roman colonialization rather
well, and Anatolia that of the post-Alexandrian Hellenistic civilization. Or
Korea and Vietnam that of hundreds of years of Chinese political and cultural
dominance. Spain has overcome, if rather violently, Arab-Islamic
colonialization, while Islamic N. Africa, the N. East, and parts of the Indian
subcontinent have changed into new civilizations that have traits of the both
the older and the new cultures, albeit that the Islamic factor here is
dominant. In each case of encounter, something new has grown out of the clash
or interaction of civilizations.
However,
the case of Japan (or Thailand) obviously indicates that one does not have to
discard one's own culture when voluntarily accepting certain, if not most of
the facets of Euro-American civilization. In fact, Japan has succeeded in doing
so several times, ever since the Yayoi period, from the acceptance of Buddhism
and Chinese culture, to certain Portuguese and Dutch influences, to the
voluntary wholesale Europeanization after 1870, and to an increasing
Americanization after 1945. However, nobody will mistake Japan as it is now as
a version of Europe or America... Other civilizations should ponder this
example instead of venturing into blind anti-(Euro-)Americanism.
Such
reactions against Euro-American cultural and political dominance are, at
present, ongoing in several parts of the globe. They are especially visible in
the Arab world and in the Near East including Iran and Afghanistan. In India
they are very vocal as far as some intellectuals are concerned and blunt in the
case of some conservative politicians, -- but they are little effective: for
all the touted revival of Hinduism, the mood of the younger generation seems
clearly bent on modernization and westernization, if not, as my colleague
Galbraith, a Kennedy time ambassador to India, has called it, a wish to 'be
reborn on the banks of the Hudson'. In SE Asia (Singapore, Malaysia) and in
East Asia (China) we see some principled opposition of foreign values that are
deemed to alien to local cultures -- or politics.
Yet,
I do not yet see such rethinking happening on a global basis. So far, too many
localized and national battles are being fought. All such movements are
underway individually in the various (sub)continents, with little mutual
interaction so far. We need to bring the major cultural points to global
consciousness and let them interact more than so far done.
Only
recently, over the past two years or so, the raw-capitalist / corporate view of
the world economy has finally come under attack. A few years ago, the French
woke up (see Witzel 1998); so, maybe they have again been at the intellectual
forefront and of a social movement. Yet, even they (and the present student
activists / anarchist followers) still are focused just on economics. But man
does not live by bread alone...
They
and their Afro-Asian counterparts overlook the fact that present Euro-American
Civilization does no longer regard itself as exactly superior (American
nationalism excluded). A lot of soul-searching has been going on, especially
after the two devastating wars of the 20th center, after 1918, 1945 (and even
earlier: Nietzsche). There has been a lot of self-doubt, as the constant talk
of crisis indicates. In other words, Euro-American civilization is searching
for new forms of ideologies, belief and self-expression. Cults are everywhere,
and superstition (astrology!) is rampant. All sorts of faddish gurus and
centers of 'new religions' make a lot of money of this insecurity.
What
still is missing is a new vision of a "new classical age" that
encompasses ideals from several constituent parts, that is from Old
Europe/modern America (liberalism, cold rationality, practicality, the ideals
of personal liberty and freedom), and those from the cultures of Asia, Africa,
and Latin America (the hybrid Mexican, Brazilian etc. cultures or even the
remnants of the Maya, Aztec, Inca, Guarani cultures), cultures whose special
traits and values have been explored here to some extent.
I
expect such interaction and mutual influences to take place, during the 21st
century, by the increasing interaction of world cultures -- based, as they are,
still on their foundational texts. They present them in myth and epic, or they
discuss them in philosophy and essay.
In
the present project, we can research some of the aspects that a future
civilization, a new Classical Age might take. We may do so by carefully reading
our Classical texts precisely because they are foundational, they embody the
'soul' of the various civilizations, -- whether they are consciously referred
to or not. Only 30% of Europeans maybe Christian now, but many (secularized)
Christian tenets, though no longer propagated as such, are subconsciously
adhered to as people are exposed to them (in socialization) while they grow up.
The
present process of mutual interchange happens so far, for the most part, at the
level of pop-culture, fashion and religious movements, all spread by global TV
(a potent factor, just as Hollywood films helped in the Americanization of
Europe from the Twenties through the Fifties).
However,
the "intellectual" part of such interaction still is largely missing.
We can supply some of it:
(1) by studying the salient features and
(2) the foundational aspects of the major
civilizations;
(3) by comparing them from a contemporaneous
point of view, evaluating them as they seem fit (or not) modern contemporaneous
life and generally human material social and spiritual aspirations;
(4) by proposing changes based on such study
and dialogue between representative s of the cultures involved;
(5) by prominently 'floating' such ideas in
Japan (and beyond) for a truly international discussion.
As
so often, the people at large --or just the students now protesting again,
after two calm decades, against globalization-- may feel that something is
wrong with our present set-up. I believe that we can to supply, based on our
study of the foundational texts, more comprehensive data, thought, and
theories. Due to its two millennia of experience in precisely this field, Japan
can lead in this, and show how to reach a new balanced perception of our world,
of society and spirituality.
***
Certainly, the new civilization will neither
be the Euro-American one, based as it is mostly on rationality, practicality
and the economy, nor will it be the overly spiritual or mythology-oriented or
overly society-oriented village or joint family-based one of some (Afro-)Asian
countries. It will be something new, something that we cannot engineer: people
will decide. But we can define a few key ingredients that might become
important and that will be modified by local conditions and the dominant global
economy.
In
short, we may expect a new world civilization to rise from the interaction of
the presently still dominant Euro-American mode with other cultures: if not a
better one, then one that is suited to the mindset and the necessities of the
21st century,
I
have often put the question to my (old) colleagues at V. Quine's Wednesday
Lunch Table at Harvard: What is really new in art, music, thought, etc.
However, the answers I got were such as : in Architecture, each new material
brought something new, a new 'style'. But is it a new style? It is just
variation of the 20th century experimentation, a clear sign in my view of a
loss of direction. We have experimented in art, music, architecture for 100
years now, with minimalist and other exercises: nothing compelling has arisen
from it.
Also
a purely cerebral definition of a future civilization does not help much, such
as Paranjpe's:
"I hope to transcend modern reason not
by negating reason as such, but by negating violent, Eurocentric,
developmentalist, hegemonic reason.
The worldwide liberation project of
transmodernity differs from a universal, univocal project that seeks to impose
violently upon the Other the following: European rationality, ... which
conflates occidental culture with the human in general.
In transmodernity, the alterity, coessential
to modernity, now receives recognition as an equal.
Modernity will come into its fullness ... by
surpassing itself through a corealization with its once negated alterity and
through a process of mutual, creative fecundation. "
In more straight-forward terms, he too
expects that something new will arise from the interaction of Euro-American
civilization and the other major cultures of the globe, while we should not
exclude unexspected influences from some small, localized traditions that
suddenly are adopted world-wide. The "native American" movement of
protection of "Mother Earth" is just one of them.
I
expect that from the interaction of world cultures -- based, as they still are
on their foundational texts, something really new will arise during the 21st
century. Which form it will take, I cannot say.
But, I look forward to it.
(8/24/2001: draft)