Can Civilisation Be Civil?

I remember in high School my history class civilisation was defined "scientifically" by the presence of writing, monuments and religion.and social structure. True, The early social scientists of Europe were heavily indebted to Greece, with all its monuments, democracy and history. Still, civilzation was defined by exclusion. Non Greek's were Barbarians, the Chinese described them selves as wise, holy and civilised, the rest uncivil. Islam sees Mohommads light revealled to a darkened world. The Brahman of Banares may believe others too inferior to be touched.

We seem to define civiisation in terms of them and us. In terms of our own ethnocentric culture. We may be civilised but act anyrhing but civil. We are human – but regularly forget to be humane. Humanity is found in all societies and so cannot fit the classification schemes of social scientists.

The result was that in the West atleast an apparently benign classification scheme tended to define Europeans as civilised, Asia as semi civilized with black peoples unworthy of the term. We may see ourselves as less racist, still, textbooks tend to present the dominant ideology to an impressionable audience. The Media adds to division even more since complete anaysis is impossible in 600 word news grabs. Once labelled the process of difference – which seems to divde us further.

Is a monument creating civilisation with no written language uncivilised? By atleast one definition yes. To the British Australia's inhabitants had no monuments – their apparently miserable lot justified to many a belief that survival of the fittest required white society to let them die out. African archeology was often driven by a need to prove racial theories.

It of course works both ways, the Khoikhoi of South Africa were denigrated by the Portuguese as some of the lowest human beings on Earth. Yet, the term Khoikhoi means 'Men of Men' or the 'Real People' was as a collective name for themselves. This implied that only cattle owning people like themselves were real men while the stockless bushmen tribes were not .

We are reminded by Pandit Ganga Prasad Upadhyaya that in all the conflicts of the twentieth century, aggressors used defence of culture to give a while face to make an offender appear less selfish and cover his dark interior (Vedic culture, Vijaykumar Govindram Hasanand, 2001, Dehli).

What interests me here is Upadnhyaya's understanding of a more inclusive use of the terms culture and civilition that has been perhaps lost in millemia of tradition and layered in historical pain.

Upadnhyaya asks us to question the militant social model by asking us to consider the hardship of motherhood. The ancient Shatapatha Brahmana describes a mother as ones first guru and preceptor. "This is the germ of civilisation which nature has put into our mothers" he writes quoting the vedic phrase "Ekoham Bahusyam' 'I am one, let me be many.' A model of selflessness that supports the weaker babe for the future. Civilisation should be defined not by antisocial conquest but by the act of becoming civil or social. The word civil means to become social.

Go back to that ever so misused word 'culture': From the Latin colere it means to till or to worship.Within is found the word cult.

We may not immediately link culture to the idea of tilling a field. We do however, talk of agri-culture, or horticulture.The tiller of the field seeks to aximise his effortsand efficiently harvest from the sees he has planted.

In Sanskrit krishi means to till. Another related Vedic word is Krishti meaning a fully cultured man – but also it can mean the common man. Upadnhyaya reminds us that the word man is tracable to the Sanskrit Manu or Manushya – the thinking being.

"Culture includes all the things, big and small, from beginning to end, which contribute to the actualisation of a sentient beings potentialities or seed powere... It is a sum total of many things which play their part in their own places, but whose function is severally and jointly to turn the seed into a full grown tree. Krishti or man is that tree, and all those small or great things which help the fullest development of this man go by the collective term 'culture.' "

Of course the term is less well used in practice – much as there are good and bad agriculturalists.

Point is that civilisation is one of the seeds that that helps actualise the seed potential of our humanity.

This point of inate humaness is not unique to the Vedas.The Dalai Lama also suggests the maternal instinct of mammals evidence the innate compassion within our design. We are not, says the Dalai Lama in The Art of Happiness, the egocentric Freudian Id driven by nothing than a destructive inner animal.

We are a social animal but we are not just society. We are individuals and there is a tension in growing and building each to synergistically grow the other.

I know that at this point many a Western reader will critically suggest this is not the India they read in history or see described in documentaries. British social policy from 1857 realised the only way to rule India's teaming millions was divisde and conquer – flare up divisions betweem Hindu and Muslim even where they were not been before.

However, the oldest Vedic texts describe a more monotheristic and egalitarian world before caste and sexual domination took hold. Monotheistic reformers like Dayandanda Sarawasti decried what they saw as a corruption of a pure faith that preced the caste system and promoted equal rights for women inclding their education, and making Sanskrit texts available in Hindi. Earlier, Ram Mohan Roy was a prime mover in having the British ban sutee as "cruel murder, under the cloak of religion" (1830, Abstract of the Arguments regarding the Burning of Widows Considered as a Religious Rite) arguing women were as morally strong – if not stronger – than men.His belief of a Divine Unity inspired a dream of a universal religion inspired Rabindranath Tagore to observe that Roy "realized that a bond of spiritual unity links the whole of mankind."

I am not arguing here for any religious view. Rather, I make a simple request for a Western reader to look beyond what (s)he thinks (s)he knows of India and the Vedas. In this, I include myself.

When exposed to a new culture, there is a neurological neccessity to link to what we know. To gain our bearings in terms of past experience – especially at first. Sadly, it limits the questions we seek to ask.

I want to focus on an older ideal to see if it is useful in our modern world.

Consider Upanhyaya's image of culture as a tree again.

Another Sanskrit word for culture is sanskriti from kri (to do) and sam meaning well literally meaning "purification and refinement which ultimately means growth" like a seed buried in the ground the outer husk decays, its obstruction removed and growth begins. "The soul is also covered so to speak with outer coatings, a non -soul matter, so to speak" writes Upanhyaya. These obstacles are to be removed. "Saskriti means its elimination, so thjat the inner qualities may be allowed the fullest play without any hamper.'Krishi' and 'Sanskriti' both mean culture because culture does not mean the outer covering. It deals directly with inner essence. " The elimination of what is foreign to our refinement.

My thoughts are do our cultures promote the greed and lust, or refinement? Or is this part of a greater teleological plan to force us to realise the folly of our ego? Or do we misuse a word to justify our greed? Should culture mean we be a cultured individual. Is it that just as there are good and inneffective agriculturlists there are refined and poor culturalists – or tillers – of the soul?

It is too large a stask to assess every aspect of ancient Vedic ideas here. Gurucharan Dass analyses the moral dilemnas the complexity of Vedic debate with a modern bent in his book The Difficulty of Being Good in the Mahabharata epic. A text where karma catches up with everyone in complex ways just as it does the Greek epics of Homer. Individual characters challenge even basic assumptions most make of India life. No one is black or white but entwined with karmic shadows driving the unconscious with a sympathy that reminds me of Leo Tolstoys works.
Still, I think we can agree civilization implies communing together. You can herd sheep into a group as you can people, but civilization implies a shared intent.

Consider the word for society: Sabha. The related word Sabhyata is called 'for all practcal purposes' a synonym for civilization, the process of making social. Sabha imay be derived from bha, to shine, and sa, meaning together which Upadhyaya describes as 'wonderfully illuminative". 
" Sabha means that the individuals of which try to make others shine, so that the lustre arising out of each individual may collectively form a centre of light. " Like light rays that individually not sun, but each makes a contribution to the whole.

This requires we go beyond ourselves. Capitalism sin is Greed says professor Amarya Sen in The Argumentative Indian, the sin of socialist societies is envy. Enforced equality rarely works. So to be truly civilized a society we must be inspired to grow within if we desire to make others shine. If like a mother we have the compassion to be the guru and preceptor to make our one many.

Many of the esoteric traditions believe in a teleological purpose leading man back to a spiritual source, A return that socially mirrors the personal return to meaning after we have exhausted the increasing demands of our ego. Will we mature as a society? Can we go beyond ourselves, or self destruct.

Nobel Lauriat for Chemistry, Ilya Prigogine, demonstrated that we, societies and peoples, grow in direct proportion to the amount of chaos we can sustain and dissipate. All systems go through different life stages. Each time a system is overwhelmed by too much energy it becomes more and more chaotic, being unable to dissipate the excess. Pushed to the brink, the system either breaks down or breaks through. If it breaks through it reorganizes at a higher level and the adjusting system grows dynamically.

In other words, we are forced to do better or we collapse. I dont know if you believe are we bbeing pushed to redesign ourselves the collective good. It my seem a fantasy to a secular mind. So, I ask you, what to you is a usable and civilising model of Civilization? To be more than a collective mob – to be civil – requires a looking above and beyond ourself. We may like to look at that in some practical, even political terms.

But it is all to easy to see the differences, and contrast others, and then condone and justify our own inequalities. We forget we live in a Universe.

"It is called a Universe" writes Upashyaya "because here is a particular unity pervading it - a factor which harmonizes all its different constituents."

A Persian proverb reminds us "God did not make five fingers equal." Why was this inequality designed? The answer is quiet clear. to give them a harmony. Exactly five fingers could not have worked harmoniously.

In the garden of ideas and people we call culture, we need to remember that plants and animals come in all shapes and sizes and evolved to fill a niche that services the whole while filling an individual need. When diversity is reduced by mass agriculture other problems surface.
Similarly, we need to respect our differences and see power in diversity. Homogenity only crushes the creative innovative spirit.

For example, I know full well that many from my Western home will scream that there tradition of freedom extends back to Grecian democracy. They object: What about the Indian caste system?, although untouchability was outawed in 1950. But then Athernian Democracy extended only to the 20 percent free male population of Hellas. They forget, or do not know, that Emperor Ashoka, who died 332 BCE, decreed equality for all citizens, 100 percent, of his kingdom of all castes, male or female even animal.
We all know it: both East and West have had moments of tolerance and inhumanity. Both East and West have preached for the benefit of all mankind and equally drifted into selfishness. Many of the corruption issues plagueing the growing India were issues that plagued the West just as grossly up to World War II.

Perhaps to be civilised requires that we should be prepared to accept truth and reject untruth. To seek the whole picture.

The objective of society should be to do good for the whole world - physically, spirtually and socially, claims the Aryta Samaj, founded by Sri Dayananda mentioned earlier. Most other religions and societies agree. But this must start on a personal level - when we act according to our dharma, after considering both right and wrong. What a Christian may call following his conscience, after considering the rights and wrongs of the case.

To be led by the dictates of love and justice and look for ones welfare in the welfare of all. This requires looking beyond ourselves. To see the interconnectedness of all things.

We may call this a spiritual goal. But then, in the Vedic system, says Upadhyaya, "culture begins with the gradual realisation of ourself as a non-material spirit. The more we realise this fact, the more we are cultured."

What do you think?
　

Image: Civilization by ~polatsamuk

Will Chilli Heat Up Atruism on the 9th of Av?

I have just finished watching a debate on ABC TV(Australia)  – “Is Wikileaks a force for Good?”

It has done good – but a force for good? Poker machines raise money for good causes but I could not call them good. I wonder if instead of being a force for good. should we ask if Wikileaks is possible only because of our stage in history?

As my as my Indian friends fry the poha and Jewish friends fast on this the 9^th of Av – the day the temple was destroyed (twice) - I wonder what is good anway?

I am convinced that history repeats in a loosely four generation cycle and we like the post WWI generation want change. Britian had lost the will to keep an empire. The world wanted freedom and an end of all war. Of course the USA – that pushed its 14 point peace plan back then, did not ratify it and kept its military while Britian had 30% less weapons pre WWII than before WWI etc.

Long before the recent recession, I often predicted we would enter economic and social upheaval of the 1920's and thirties. Now I am no prphet – it just seemed logical.

As the US economy size declines compared to China, the West is again repeating the same (economically driven?) call for a reduction in military expense. I often compare the US to Republican Rome which gained much of its power before the empire by military and economic pressure, at times as a mediator between warring sides, negotiating treaties to its advantage.

Now it is China that has the money – and a military presence not unlike the USA had as Britians military declined post WWI. Now the USA struggles over the will to empire.

The only thing I am uncertian of is how Chinas 1 child policy will effect its ability to innovate in future. Innovation is usually fueled by youth.

Will this mean that India will surpass China as an economic power house in say 20 years? Perhaps it will depend on India's ability to deal with its massive curruption problem.

Octavius was declared Augustus after defeating Cleopatra and Marc Antony in what was a battle od different world views. Augustus claimed to be the offspring of Apollo who sedjuced his mother in a temple- rational and military. Cleopatra claimed to be Isis (who the Romans pointed out was to them Venus and as a mother to children of both Ceasar and Antony easy to be labelled a prstitute), whose worship called for knowlwdge in the realms of intoxication. Antony, like alexander the Great, dressed as Hercules.

Are we now fighting a conflict of freedom versus control?

Naval historian Cyril Parkinson, of Parkinsons Law fame (“Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion”), wrote a book East and West in 1963. He argued that the shifts from East to West and back again are traceable to Babylonian times. He predicted the rise of China.

I wonder whether the shifting sands of time will focus more narrowly in the increasingly universal world of the internet? Will national boundaries bwecome less influential? Personally, I think that greed will force a more universal call to action – but whether it is sustainable will depend on whether we can realise the overall benefit in altruitic action.

I admit I dream of a world much as Rabindranath Tagore:

“I believe that there is an ideal hovering over the earth, an ideal of that Paradise which is not the mere outcome of imagination, but the ultimate reality towards which all things are moving. I believe that this vision of Paradise is to be seen in the sunlight, and the green of the earth, in the flowing streams, in the beauty of springtime and the repose of a winter morning. Everywhere in this earth the spirit of Paradise is awake and sending forth its voice.”

Writers like Tagore, and Sri Aurobindo describe a teleological view of history leading to a utopian future. The Western meta historian Arnold Tovey wrote with a similar bent.

The problem I see is that life is multifaceted. There are two sides to a coin. As I travel the world I see people point to the good of their culture and ignore the bad.

For every good there is always an equal and opposite social force. Sometimes one force is focused in one person or entity – and so holds sway against diffuse apposing ideas.

In the thirties Nazism grew because Germany had no middle ground. There was Communism or Nazism.

Are we becoming as polarised?

There is an idea in kabbalah that describes the ten divine qualities, or sephirot, in three lines or three pillars in the tree of life. The Pillars of Mercy, Severity and Balance. I am not wanting to sound “Madonna – ish” and I admit a gross over simplification here.

Now I admit, Kabbalah is used and abused to jusify anything these days. Anything can be called kabbalah these days. Anything can be called spirituality these days.

One of the triangles on this model balances expansive, kindly, flowing chesed with the fiery focus of gevurah. The middle line is compassionate but practical Tiferet, often described as serving a greater cause. But even there a fighting for a greater cause can degenerate into bigotry when selfishness takes over.

Perhaps it is in moments of calm reflection – in meditative stillness – we can see the balance of forces heaped upon us.

Or perhaps that is not enough. I once read a quote from the Chassidic leader, Rebbe Schneersohn who replied to someone who wrote he was avoiding social activism because it had been feeding his ego: “And without the activism there is no ego? Better a haughty activist than a self-centered do-nothing!”

A friend of mine was raised by Mother Theresa, who according to her, had an ego.

Egoless detachment may be an ideal for observation but ego drives achievement as well.

The question is whether we can turn our desires from self centredness to the greater good. I just finished Bob Geldoffs autobiography, and he certianly had an ego. But used it to make good.

The kabbalistic teacher Michael Laitman, points out that in kabbalah the soul achieves graded attainments called worlds. The word "Olam", world, derives from "Alamah" or concealment.

These are the degrees of concealment of unity. Unity is the ultimate, most intense delight that one can possibly feel. That the collective soul is seeking.

Laitman wrote: “It is said that there is no greater pleasure in our world than settling doubts. After being lost in doubt, after searching and being confused, a person gets confounded in contradictions and is unable to resolve a problem. Then suddenly a person finds a solution. The solution comes because two extremes merge into a single whole and form unity. They complement one another and exist thanks to one another.”

I am agnostic in my wait and see attitude towards messianic chronologies. I dont know if I can pin utopian dates on mankind as do some who see the Messiah in the Rebbe or the revealling of unity that Michael Laitman suggests was predicted by kabbalist Baal Ha Salum.

I do know, that the increasing bipolar division of a schitzoid political debate needs to seek unity. But unity is more than the short term thrill of politcal promises over sold and under delivered.

“Yes we can” …....... but will we? I remember when Kevin Rudd and Barak Obama thrilled us with utopian ideals I really doubted they could pull it off. The cycle of an aging baby boomer generation costs an economy.

Still, from the time of colonialism on, after the hoo haa of cut backs it was trade and exchange that rebuilt the market …. and a public works program that we usually associate with Labor or the US Democrats.

Hopefully we can tackl the swings of history like yachts against the wind, narrowing our focus on an atruistic ideal.

For thinkers like Laitman “this unity which the souls reveal in everything, even in our world, is perceived as the greatest delight ….peace is savored after a war. That is to say, first we sense a contradiction, reveal the lack of unity, completeness; realize the evil. Darkness should precede light because otherwise we will attain nothing.”

Mystics of East and West – and Laitman rejects the label of Mysticism for Kabbalah, atleast not in the sense the word came to used with the rise of Christian thought – describe the seeking of opposites like lovers, opposites merging as one. Sufism, Christian mystics and Jews describe a marriage be it of God and Israel, Jesus and Church or Allah and his worshippers. Ancient Hindu monotheism similarly marries apposing aspects of the divine.

And lovers, like Romeo and Juliet, may go through trial and tribulation to be together to enjoy the sweetness of love.

Meanwhile, the worlds of Montague and Capulet fought on regardless.

What of us?

Rather than divide our world Cleopatra against Augustus, freedom againsy structure, perhaps we need to seek a practical, yet altruistic middle ground. Peace historically has thrived in times of structure which, ironiucally meant there were powerful people gulty of abuses.

Turning back to Wikileaks, I find myself asking is whether it will do more good – or will its revelations be one sided as totalitarian regimes simply keep their secrets hidden and laugh at the free world.

Assange himself has threatens any would be Wikileaks employers with a 12 million dollar fine if they break ranks. Again we see that for every social force we see the opposite even within the same organisation and person.

Freedom and restriction are a matter of perspective.

Of course, we could ask to what extent we are really free – how much of our choices are a product of biology and social conditioning, or the agonies of our personal and historical pasts ….......

…... but that I suppose is another question and for another time.

As it is, I have just finished cooking Poha Upma, a recipe from Andhra Pradesh. Before I first visited India I would like may a Westerner squrmed at the amounts of chilli in the dish. As in many Indian foods, different ingredients cool what are hot ingredients.

The balancing of tastes makes for a harmonious whole. Ayurveda extends this to personality temprements that left unbalanced go to extremes – just like the chilli if unbalanced in a dish.

And of course for a true democracy – if one really exists – people should be able to make informed choice. But we dont have all the facts – even from Wikileaks which may dump a bunch of pages online but does little to help evaluate the total picture.

Meanwhile, the Jewish crowd go hungry waiting for the ever approaching sunset.

One friend emailed “As the person does not eat or drink for a day, and he know there is nothing he can do about it, resigns to the fact, suddenly he is free of worrying about that part of his body, catering for himself, and suddenly all that energy, activity, thinking process becomes free for other activities.”

Unlike in India, fasting is not a very Jewish activity, as it is associated with Jewish mourning. Still, I witness clarity of thought among fasting Indian friends, who enjoy the cleansing experience. To sit back as if from the distance of Pluto to see that so much of what we call important ultimately is nothing.

Is this what Ken Wilbur meant by adulthood? Someone who takes FULL responsibility for  their emotions, and their results in the three basic arenas  of life?

We long for freedom but need structure. Without it we will forever be needing Bob Geldoff to form another sing along ….....

I wonder if he looks back and asks about the long term good for all his efforts?

…....... he certianly tried hard enough