Social Issues and Varnashrama (Cambridge University)

Acaryadeva  speaks about different government systems, how the authorities exercise power, how this relates to the economic system and how the underlying metaphysical assumptions draw out the conclusion that there is a Personal God. He also explains the difference between spiritual equality and social hierarchy.

listen or download  choose "save target as" or "save link as" to download

summary:

Acaryadeva first explains different types of government - capitalism, socialism - from a social point of view. There is a need to be reasonable in the exercise of authority and power.

Then the spiritual part: Different metaphysical systems are visible through architecture. It says a lot about our age that the great systems like socialism and capitalism which are debated are economic systems. The general principle of how great a person is should not only be evaluated by how much money they have.

There are certain metaphysical assumptions underlying the argument for socialism which are very similar to the metaphysical assumptions underlying democracy, namely the idea that in some significant way people are equal. Essentially animals don’t have equal rights to human beings. It is a metaphysical assumption that they have fewer rights. It seems that there is an extraordinary contradiction that democracy - and to some extent socialism - are based on the metaphysical assumption that human being are equal which cannot empirically be proofed. Where does that equality come from?

We have a common sense or feeling that certain values are true, like not killing people. It is interesting to ask why that is the case. If we want to claim that killing or racisms is objectively wrong it means that there are certain objective metaphysical values in the universe outside of human opinion.  If that is true, ontologically speaking we are faced with a metaphysical universe. The question arises whether there are other higher principles which may further enlighten our behavior.

What if is just our pragmatic feeling that everyone contributes something valuable to society and should therefore not be killed? In the case of someone who is chronically antisocial - if we rest a moral principle of not killing on the assumption of everyone is adding something what if it turns out that some people are really negative numbers in society? There is a danger in the argument on pragmatic or utilitarian grounds in terms of contribution, laws etc, that we shouldn’t kill (example: The Canadian forests are being weakened because the government suppresses or distinguishes forest fires and it turns out to be the case that periodic forest fires keep  the forest healthy because it weeds out the weaker trees.) If we decide we are not going with any type of metaphysical principle but on practical ground we enter into a very dangerous area (Social Darwinism).

One other idea is the system of catur varniyam, a division of labor which has nothing to do with the Indian cast system. (Nationalism is a type of hereditary case system which people generally are not aware of.) The first group was the brahmana, the intellectuals ... Plato in his “Republic” also has the idea that there should be a group of people in society who are only dedicated to wisdom.

The next group is a governing class which was under those who are wise. The idea is that there is some restraint on political power. The next was the business class and then those people who worked under them. Some of the merits of this system are that there is a free market, people can acquire wealth but they are not unrivaled, out of control. For the workers there is a kind of socialism, they get what they need to live peacefully and certain basic needs are fulfilled. On the top of the system you have the pursuit of wisdom so that everyone in the society understands that they are under the pursuits of wisdom which unifies society. In the ancient India (Bharata), there was also freedom of speech.

This sounds very idealistic, but there need to be high principles. Without principles you are nowhere. One important point is that there is tremendous potential for corruption and exploitation whenever you set up hierarchies and that is what happened historically. What makes it work properly is the highest kind of dharma, sanatana dharma. It refers to the essential characteristics of the eternal person. There is an Indio-European term of souls being eternal, which means beyond material time.

If a society has real Brahmins then people in society are cultivating their nature as spiritual beings, and it is this spiritual quality which is needed to prevent the hierarchy from becoming abusive and exploitative. So one level you have hierarchy but on another level you have real equality. So we are equal as spiritual beings and the spiritual part is the most important part. This equality is the predominating fact about us. That includes all living conscious beings. So the spiritual elements is essential.

Question: How do you know that souls are equal?

Answer: I would claim that it is possible to have spiritual knowledge. The claim that we cannot have real knowledge about spiritual things, we can only believe them, is extremely naïve. To say that only claims which are empirically verified can be accepted to be true is a contradiction in itself (like “never say never”.) That claim itself cannot be empirically verified. If there is an objective reality that exists and certain people know it, then they know it. The way you can verify or test it is the same way you can test anything. You would have to have a relevant experience which satisfies you that now you know something.

Greco-Roman civilization in many ways was very advanced and was rediscovered in European Renaissance. However, there was no notion that we are all equal. People were very enthusiastic about slavery. The citizens of Athens could only have participate so much in Town hall democracy because they had so man slave to do everything else for them. The idea that we are all equal is a religious idea which came from the notion that in they eyes of God we are all equal. It is a theistic worldview in the sense of believing in some kind of personal conscious God.

We find in all world religions also an impersonal school. The philosophical implication is that it is an illusion that we are individual souls. The problem with this kind of ontology is that therefore it doesn’t really matter so much to have justice in the world because ultimately we don’t exist.  So therefore the theistic traditions came up with the notion that everyone is equal in front of God and has equal rights.