THE BASIS OF VALUES IN A TIME OF CHANGE

What we have stated above introduced two factors in the explanation of value: one is desire and the other is realization. It is necessary to add one more factor in order to distinguish the activities of human beings from those of animals. It is well known that animals, like human beings, fulfil their desires for food, water and shelter, to mention only a few of their desire-prompted activities; but unlike human beings, they are guided by their instincts in all these activities. They pursue and achieve their ends without an idea of the satisfaction they are seeking. But human beings desire certain objects knowing what they are; they consciously pursue and realize them, and derive a sense of satisfaction after realizing them. This difference arises because of the mind, the most precious instrument humans possess. The emergence of the mind in the process of evolution has placed human beings at a level higher than the one reached by animals. In the course of explaining the pre-eminence of humans among all living beings Sankara points out that the deliberate goal-seeking activities of human beings reveal their capacities for knowledge, desire, and will, which enable them to pursue and realize the ends they choose.1 The mind is characterized by the power of reasoning necessary for the choice of ends as well as the means thereto, the capacity for self-reflection, and the ability for reviewing the past, understanding the present, and projecting the future. All of these help human beings to pursue and realize their goals with a clear awareness thereof. So, in addition to desire (ista) and realization (apti) we have to add the human factor (purusa) in order to get the full significance of the term "value". It is not enough to say that "what is desired" is a value; we have to say that "what is desired by a human being" is a value. That is why in the Indian tradition we use the term "purusartha" as the equivalent of value; this term associates the human factor (purusa) with the object (artha) which is desired and realized.2 The term "purusartha" will help us to understand the basis of values.

The human condition comprehends more than the conditions under which life has been given to man. Men are conditioned beings because everything they come in contact with turns immediately into a condition of their existence. The world in which the vita activa spends itself consists of things produced by human activities; but the things that owe their existence exclusively to men nevertheless constantly condition their human makers. In addition to the conditions under which life is given to man on earth, and partly out of them, men constantly create their own, self-made conditions, which, their human origin and variability notwithstanding, possess the same conditioning power as natural things. Whatever touches or enters into a sustained relationship with human life immediately assumes the character of a condition of human existence. That is why men, no matter what they do, are always conditioned beings.3

Though the not-Self which is material is made up of several constituents, it is enough in the present context to refer to three of them, viz. the mind, the senses, and the body, which account for the various kinds of activities performed by a human being. Of these three, only the body is visible and gross, whereas the mind and the senses are invisible and subtle. The Vedanta tradition holds that the mind and the senses belong to the subtle body (isuksma-sarira) which is differentiated from the gross external body (sthula-sarira).4 As material the not-Self is perishable. This means that as material the mind, the senses, and the body, which along with some more factors are the constituents of the not-Self, are therefore perishable.5 For all practical purposes we can say that the mind and the senses are located in the gross, external body. The Self, too, which is invisible and subtler than the mind and the senses, is housed in the body. So according to the Vedanta tradition, a human being is the Self-in-the-body.

The concept of the Self-in-the-body brings out the limitation to which the infinite Self is subject because of its association with the non-Self, the material component of the human being. Under the influence of the mind-sense-body complex the infinite Self becomes the individuated self in such a way that it is spoken of as having birth and death even though it has neither, and as having name and form even though it is devoid of both.6 The individuated self which is identified, for example, as David or Devadatta, is given a date and place of birth, and ceases to exist at a particular time and place. Here is a case of illicit transfer or false ascription to the Self of what is true of the mind, the senses, and the body. The point to be noted here is that the Self of the human being remains unaffected not only by space, time, and objects, but also by the mind-sense-body complex with which it is associated during its empirical journey. Nevertheless, the mind-sense-body complex which is the material outfit for the Self undergoes change from time to time.

The sense-objects are higher than the senses, and the mind is higher than the sense-objects; but the intellect is higher than the mind; and the Mahat is higher than the intellect. The unmanifested is higher than Mahat; the Purusa is higher than the Unmanifested. There is nothing higher than the Purusa, who is the culmination, the highest goal.7

Values are Related to the Self. There is an interesting dialogue of great metaphysical significance between Yajnavalkya and his wife Maitreyi in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad.8 Yajnavalkya had two wives, Maitreyi and Katyayani. With the resolve to take up the life of a sannyasin, he called Maitreji aside and informed her that he would bequeath his property to her and Katyayani and give up the life of a householder. When the philosophically oriented Maitreji asked her husband whether wealth which was of no use to him would be of help to her to attain immortality, she received a negative reply. As she was desirous of the Self as the means to immortality he taught her thereafter the knowledge of the self as the means to immortality. As a prelude to his teaching that the Self alone is worthy of knowing because by knowing the Self everything is known, he said that "everything is dear for the sake of the Self". The following is his argument:

Verily, not for the sake of the husband is the husband dear, but a husband is dear for the sake of the Self. Verily, not for the sake of the wife is the wife dear, but a wife is dear for the sake of the Self. . . . Verily, not for the sake of wealth is wealth dear, but wealth is dear for the sake of the Self. . . . Verily, not for the sake of all is all dear, but all is dear for the sake of the Self. The Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realized — should be heard of, reflected on, and meditated upon. By the realization of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all this is seen.9

The Realization of Values is Dependent on the Self. So far I have shown how values are relative to the Self. I will now proceed to the second step in the analysis. Of the two components in human beings, the Self and the not-Self, it is the Self which reveals the presence or absence of anything, because it is of the nature of consciousness. The mind-sense-body complex cannot perform this function. By themselves the three entities of this complex cannot reveal anything because they are material. It is true that the mind and the senses are the instruments of cognition. The real situation is that they are ultimately dependent on the Self for doing their work. The senses cannot perform their functions of hearing, seeing, smelling, and so on without the help of the mind; and the mind in its turn cannot perform its manifold functions without the help of the Self. Though the mind is material, unlike other material objects, it is capable of reflecting the light, the revealing power of the Self and performing its functions by virtue of its purity, on the one hand, and its proximity to the Self, on the other. Serving as the effective medium for the Self, it takes credit for its extensive work as manas (mind), buddhi (intellect), citta (memory-stuff), and ahankara (egoity) as if it has revealing power, though the illuminating power belongs to the Self.10 It is against this background that we have to analyze the process which leads to the acceptance of anything as a value. Given the Self, it is possible to think of something as a value, to pursue and realize it; whereas in the absence of the Self, this is not possible. There are three links in the causal nexus connecting the human being as a subject and the object as a value. Because of the Self functioning through the mind and the sense-organ, a human being becomes a knower (jnata).

The intellect, being transparent and next to the Self, easily catches the reflection of the consciousness of the Self . . . ; next comes the manas which catches the reflection of the Self through the intellect; then the organs, through contact with the manas; and lastly, the body, through the organs. Thus, the Self successively illumines with its own consciousness the entire aggregate of body and organs.11

when the external lights that help the different organs have ceased to work, the Self, the infinite entity that is the light within the intellect, helps the organs through the mind. Even when the eternal aids of the organs, viz. the sun and other lights subserve the purpose of some other agency, and the body and organs, being insentient, cannot exist for themselves; this aggregate of body and organs cannot function without the help of the Self, the light that lives for itself. It is always through the help of the light of the Self that all our activities take place.12

According to Sankara, everything other than the Self is material and the general principle which he formulates in this connection is that every material object, be it the sun or the moon, be it the tree or the table, be it the mind or the body, exists not for itself, but for the sake of something else (parartha), whereas the Self alone exists for itself (svartha).13 So, the cognition of a fact as something worth attaining is the first link in the process of value realization. Then the valuing subject develops a desire to attain it. The arousal of desire is due to a feeling of pleasure experienced by the valuing subject in the past. The arousal of desire, which is the second link, is followed by an effort or endeavor on the part of the valuing subject to attain the object. The activity which the valuing subject performs to realize the goal is the third link in the process.14 So, the cognition, desire, and activity of a human being, which lead to the realization of an end which is cherished as a value, are made possible by the Self, the inner light of a human being.

The Self, the Highest Value. So far I have shown that values are not only relative to the Self, but that their final realization is also dependent on the Self. I shall now proceed to the third step in the analysis of the metaphysical basis of values. Just as human desires are manifold, values also are manifold. A little reflection is enough to show that all values are not of the same kind. Values are classified into higher and lower, and the hierarchy of values is worked out in different ways. The classification of values can be taken up later. The point to be emphasized here is that the view that "everything is dear for the sake of the Self" highlights not only the centrality of the Self in relation to values, but also the status of the Self as the highest value. This means that, without making a distinction between the Self and values, we have to include the Self in the list of values. What, then, is the place of the Self in the system of values? The Self is at the top of the hierarchy of values. The pursuit of higher values should prepare the ground for the realization of the highest value, for only when the highest value is realized is there the sense of fulfillment. Also when the highest value is realized there is the fulfillment of all desires. That is why the Upanisad, using the language of an imperative, declares: "The Self should be realized — should be heard of, reflected on, and meditated upon."15 Scripture does not and need not tell us that we have to pursue lower values such as food, water, shelter, and so on, which are necessary for our survival, because we pursue them on our own as do animals. But scripture exhorts us to pursue higher values, and also gives the reason why the highest value should be realized.

The Convergence of the Ontological, the Axiological, and the Epistemological

Both the good and the pleasant approach a man. The wise man, pondering over them, discriminates. The wise man chooses the good in preference to the pleasant. The simple-minded, for the sake of worldly well-being, prefers the pleasant.16

- The Epistemological Issue: Liberating Knowledge and Blending Ignorance. The axiological approach to Brahman or the Self is reinforced by means of epistemology. Dividing knowledge into two broad categories, higher wisdom (paravidya) and lower knowledge (aparavidya), Advaita holds that the supreme reality can be realized only by higher wisdom.17 The epistemological distinction between the two kinds of knowledge corresponds to the axiological distinction between the good and the pleasant. That which is conducive to the attainment of the good, i.e., the Self, is called higher wisdom whereas the knowledge of the objects of the world, which is the means to the attainment of material prosperity and happiness, is called lower knowledge. One who pursues values of various kinds belonging to the sphere of the pleasant is ignorant of the highest reality. Such a person, notwithstanding his or her knowledge of things empirical, is, therefore, said to be in the state of ignorance. For this reason lower knowledge itself is called "ignorance" by Sankara. The terms "lower knowledge" and "ignorance" are not used in a derogatory sense. From the standpoint of higher wisdom, it is called "lower knowledge". Since the scope of lower knowledge does not extend to the highest reality (highest value), it is given the label "ignorance" with a view to emphasizing what is and what is not comprehended by it.

That there is a plurality of values is accepted by all. However, there is difference of opinion with regard to the classification of values. I shall first of all refer to one classification which has been accepted by quite a few in the Western tradition. This is a classification based on the two levels of life, organic and hyper-organic, of human beings. At the organic level the basic needs of life such as food, water, and so on, which are necessary for survival, become the values of life for all without any distinction whatsoever. So far as the pursuit of the basic values is concerned, there is no distinction between human beings and lower animals. Without being confined to the organic level, human beings lead their lives at another level which is characterized as hyper-organic. The hyper-organic level consists of two layers, social and spiritual. The purpose of human life is manifest at this level. The Indian mind never thought of knowledge as an end in itself; pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge has never been the Indian ideal. A celebrated Vaisnava teacher, Vedantadesika, said that the knowledge which human beings possess is to help them secure the goals of life and for adopting the appropriate means to secure these goals.18 The point to be stressed here is that the goals of life at which humans aim must be fully reflective of their nature. The life-activity of man should not be confined to the cultivation of the senses, which has already been achieved at the animal level. Man cannot be considered to be "human" unless his senses have become "human" or refined. His senses should not be subservient to the basic needs alone. So at the hyper-organic level, being fully aware of his life in the social community of which he is a member, he pursues social values such as friendship, fellowship, and so on. In addition to the social dimension, he has also a personal dimension of life which collectively are called spiritual values. While the basic values are at the bottom of the scale, the highest values are at the top.

From that Brahman, which is Atman, was produced ether. From ether emerged air. From air was born fire. From fire was created water. From water came earth. . . .19

He (the Self) desired: "Let me be many; let me be born." So he deliberated. Having deliberated, he created all this that exists. That (Brahman), having created (that), entered into that very thing. And having entered there, it became the formed and the formless. . . .20

The problem to be considered here is whether these two values are permanent or impermanent. Let us first consider the case of artha. It is well known that what serves as an instrumental value in one context may not be so to the same person in another context. This means that there is no guarantee that an instrumental value will secure the end which is sought through it. This limitation reveals the undependable character of an instrumental value. The difficulty is different in the case of kama. The satisfaction or pleasure derived through a particular means does not last long because sooner or later it is replaced by a desire for some other mode of satisfaction. So, while the instrumental values are precarious (anaikantika), the intrinsic ones are unstable (anatyantika).21 In short, there is always uncertainty about both values, artha and kama.

Dharma. No other term is used so frequently both by scholars and the common people in the Indian tradition as dharma; at the same time no other term is so complex and confusing as dharma. The etymological meaning of this word is simple, but profound. Dharma means "what holds together", what supports or protects.22 So in the Indian tradition dharma is understood as the principle which is the basis of all order, social and moral. It is the principle which is binding on all — the ruler and the ruled, the strong and the weak, all sections of people. Citing a text of the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad23 which gives an account of the evolution of the social classes (varnas), Hiriyanna explains how the principle of dharma as a universally binding principle was invoked for the maintenance and preservation of the social order. In the words of Hiriyanna:

What was originally but a simple social structure, it is said, came, in course of time, to be differentiated into four classes or castes, viz., Brahmins, Ksattriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras. Of these, the Ksattriya or warrior is represented as the chief support of society, since it is to his prowess and control that it owes its preservation from external danger and internal disorder. But physical might and external control do not adequately explain social order. The former may end in the tyranny of the ruler and the enslavement of society, placing might thus in the place of right. The latter may fail to evoke from the ruled a willing response, which is the only true response. Hence the need arose, it is added, for creating something better or higher (sreyo-rupam). It is this higher principle that is dharma.24

The prescriptions of dharma are manifold because it has to deal with all sections of people. It assigns duties common to all people, known as s~dh~rana-dharmas; also it assigns duties specific to the stages and orders of life, known as viÑesa-dharmas. Further, it suggests ways and means of achieving worldly prosperity and happiness through the performance of sacrifices. It also acts as a regulative principle in respect of acquiring artha and enjoying k~ma. It shows the way to Ñreyas or moksa through purification of the mind (citta-Ñuddhi). It is also viewed as an end in itself and not as a means to something else.

Moksa. Excepting C~rv~ka, all systems of Indian philosophy, Vedic and non-Vedic, accept liberation (moksa) as the highest value. There are two ways in which the nature of liberation may be understood — negatively as liberation from, or cessation of, suffering; and positively as the state of bliss. Human suffering is threefold:

- that which arises from intro-organic causes (~dhy~tmika) such as bodily and mental diseases;

- that which arises from extra-organic causes (~dhibhautika) such as men and beasts;

- that which arises from extro-organic supernatural causes (~dhidavivika) such as rain, famine and earthquakes.

Though there are remedial measures which help human beings overcome suffering arising from any of these courses in a temporary way, liberation from suffering totally and forever (|tyantika-duhkha-nivrtti) can be attained only through the knowledge of the supreme reality, Brahman or the Self, because knowledge alone can destroy ignorance which is the root cause of bondage. It is not necessary to go into the details with regard to the nature of moksa as well as the means thereto as explained in the different systems.

Three points are to be noted here. First, all systems which accept moksa as the highest value hold that the beginning of the empirical life of the j§va, which is suffering, is not known, and cannot be known because the present empirical life of the j§va is said to be beginningless (an~di). It does not follow from this that it has no end. Second, all these systems maintain that the cycle of birth and death can be broken by attaining the saving knowledge of the supreme reality. The attainment of liberation is the termination of empirical life. Third, it is wrong to think that the ideal of moksa cannot be realized and that it has been projected for the purpose of the self-improvement of human beings. All these systems maintain that the ideal of moksa is not only worthy of realization, but can be realized. This leads to the question "when". These systems differ in answering this question. According to some, however earnest the spiritual aspirants may be in their practice of moral and spiritual discipline prescribed therefor, the goal cannot be reached in this life. As against this eschatological conception of moksa, which is advocated by theistic systems, there is the view advocated by Advaita that moksa can be attained here in this life. There is no more empirical life for a person who is liberated. The bliss of the liberated is the highest and ever-lasting. It may be noted that this view of liberation-in-life (j§van-mukti) is unique. Inviting our attention to the significance of the ideal of j§van-mukti vis-à-vis the eschatological conception of liberation, Hiriyanna writes:

Whatever basis there may be for this eschatological view of moksa in early Vedic literature, we must say that the conception of it, viz. that the final ideal of man can be attained here and now, marks a great advance. The habit of contemplating a future life engenders an attitude of "other-worldliness" which is most detrimental to proper behaviour in this world. The thought of a future life is sure to tend to dwarf the present. But the other view, which presents moksa as the contemplation or consummation of mundane life rightly led, infinitely deepens the significance of the present life. Socrates is stated to have brought philosophy down from heaven to earth; the seers of the Upanisads and those among the later Indian thinkers who follow them in this respect, we may say, discovered that heaven itself is on the earth, could one but realize it.25

That One, breathless, breathed by its own nature. Apart from it there was nothing whatsoever. . . . Therefore rose desire in the beginning: desire, the primal seed and germ of mind.26

Mere change without conservation is a passage from nothing to nothing. Its final integration yields mere transient non-entity. Mere conservation without change cannot conserve. For after all, there is a flux of circumstance, and the freshness of being evaporates under mere repetition.27

In the language of axiology, the essentials are the higher values and the non-essentials are the lower values. The primal Being or Spirit, known as Brahman or }tman in the Indian tradition, is the highest value. It is the source and support of all values, higher and lower. Also, other values are meaningful only in relation to it. It is, therefore, worthy of realization. Hence there is the imperative, as stated earlier, that Brahman or the Self ought to be realized. However, whenever there are changes in the human condition, the vision of the essentials becomes blurred and the non-essentials tend to usurp the place of the essentials. These times call for a renewal of the tradition by changing the non-essentials without prejudice to the essentials. In the Indian tradition a series of renaissance took place in order to conserve the tradition in the midst of changes in its long history of over five millennia spanning the pre-axial, axial and modern periods.

The second renaissance of the Vedic tradition took place about 200 BC after the fall of the Mauryan empire. During that empire, Buddhism, which was dominant, challenged the Vedic religion. Jainism also questioned the Vedic religion and weakened its authority. In spite of threats and challenges, the Vedic religion reasserted its supremacy. Cultural historians are of the view that the aÑvamedha sacrifice performed by Pusyamitra, the founder of the Su¿ga dynasty on the ruins of the Mauryan empire, may be taken as heralding the second renaissance of the Vedic tradition which began about 200 BC and continued till the end of the seventh century AD. During this period, the Vedic tradition was renewed by the two epics, the Mah~bh~ata and R~m~yana. The hold of these two epics on the masses is, in fact, stronger than that of the Vedas.

The bhakti movement which began in the beginning of the eighth century AD ushered in the third renaissance. Buddhism was on the decline from the middle of the seventh century AD. The anti-Vedic attitude was still prevalent in some pockets of India. Kum~rila Bhatta and Ðankara who were critical of Buddhism tried to consolidate the tradition from different directions — the former from the side of karma and the latter from the side of jñ~na. There was need also to popularize the teachings of the Vedas among the people. The teachings of the Ðaiva and Vaisnava mystics played a decisive role in this regard, because they were able to establish rapport with the people through their hymns which were in the vernacular. The bhakti movement which started in the South spread to the North stage by stage, and finally became a pan-Indian pheno-menon, a pervasive and deep-rooted force to be reckoned with. When the bhakti movement was at its peak, the historical situation witnessed the establishment of the Muslim kingdom and the Moghul empire, and then the British rule.

We cannot restore the practice of the Vedic period, for that would be to deny the dialectic of history. Again, we cannot start de novo, as if India has no history and as if people could change their nature merely by taking thought. Possibilities must be grounded in the nature of the actual. Civilizations must live on the lines of their own experience. Like individuals, even nations cannot borrow experience from others. They may provide us with light, but our own history provides us with the conditions of action. The only revolutions that endure are those that are rooted in the past. We can make our own history, but we cannot do so at will, in conditions of our own choosing. . . . Culture is tradition and tradition is memory. The duration of this memory depends on the continuous appearance of creative personalities.28

1. See his commentary on the Taittir§ya Upanisad, 2.1.1: purusa eva hi Ñaktatv~t arthitv~t aparyudastatv~t ca arth§ vidv~n samarthah karmajñ~nayoh adhikriyate.

2. Purusena arthyate iti purus~rthah.

4. Only two are mentioned here. Actually there are three bodies — gross (sthãla), subtle (sãksma), and causal (k~rana). Avidy~ or ignorance is the causal body.

6. Advaita uses two terms to bring out the difference between the Self in its unconditioned and conditioned aspects. The former is called €tman; the latter, J§va.

8. Brhd~ranyaka Upanisad, 2.3.4.

10. Though I have been using the popular term "mind", the technical term for it in the classical texts is "internal organ" (antahkarana). Though it is one, depending upon its functions it is called by four different names — manas, buddhi, citta, and ahank~ra.

11. Brhd~ranyaka Upanisad, 2.4.5.

14. That is why we say: j~n~ti, icchati, yatate.

15. Brhd~ranyaka Upanisad, 2.4.5.

18. See his Ðr§mad Rahasyatrayasra (tr. M.R. Rajagopala Ayyangar) (Kumbakonam, 1956), p. 53.

19. Taittir§ya Upanisad, 2.1.1

22. dh~rayati iti dharmadh.