CHAPTER VII

SOME RELEVANT IMPLICATIONS

I. POSIT A METAPURUSHARTHA?

1. Introduction

We have seen that the fourfold scheme of purusharthas gives us a normative

orientation to life. We also found that the four purusharthas involve each other and

that they in their interrelationship form one single goal. But now the question is: Is it

the ultimate goal? Are the purusharthas ultimate in the sense that there is nothing

beyond for us to look forward to?

2. Why Posit a Metapurushartha?

This question is an important one. For, dharma is regarded as the ultimate

goal by some groups like the Buddhists; People like Kautilya has argued that artha is

the ultimate goal; according to the Tantric way of looking at things, kama is to be

considered as the ultimate goal; and for many others of our religious and

philosophical traditions, moksha is the ultimate goal.

Given the logic of syadvada, the Jaina theory that every judgment is relative,

each of these positions could conditionally be justified. This is best illustrated by the

story which the Jainas have contributed to the world of literature. It is the story of the

blind men who formed their ideas of an elephant by touching its legs, ears, tail and

trunk respectively and thus came to a quarrel regarding the real shape of the animal.

If each of the purusharthas can be regarded as ultimate, though conditionally,

then none of them is really the ultimate goal. Nor can all of them together be the

ultimate, though they together in their interrelationship might be thought of as the

single ultimate goal. For, all four of them often than not point to something else

which must in fact be regarded as the ultimate goal.

3. The Ultimate Goal?

What is that ultimate goal to which all the four purusharthas are directed?

One contention is that Samodaya or lokasamgraha is that ultimate goal. All the

so-called purusharthas are oriented towards it and thus it is to be regarded as the

meta-purushartha. Here, of course, we do not rule out the possibility of including this

goal of sarvodaga in that of dharma.

We have already shown that the four purusharthas are interrelated in such a

way that they together form one single goal. In other words, as we have already

pointed out, the ultimate goal of life is to live and what enables us to pursue this

ultimate goal in a meaningful manner is our traditional scheme of purusharthas.

Applying the distinction between form and content, we can boldly say that the

fourfold scheme of purusharthas is what gives content to our ultimate goal of being

meaningfully alive.

If this is granted, then there is no reason why we cannot use the traditional

expression sawodaya or lokasamgraha for the kind of ultimate goal we have

described above. The purusharthas are pursued so that every thing may live, and

that too, meaningfully. In other words, the ultimate goal of lokasamgraha invites us

to pursue dharma, artha, kama and moksha in a reasonable and meaningful

manner. That is, lokasamgraha is the metapurushartha that enables us to secure all

the other purusharthas.

Thus, in saying that to live meaningfully is the ultimate goal we are saying

that the welfare of the world is the ultimate goal. Now, positing lokasamgraha as a

metapurushartha demands that we substantiate it and illustrate it if possible. By way

of meeting this demand, let us begin by taking up the question of another

metapurushartha.

4. Bhakti - a Metapurushartha?

There are theologians like Subhash Anand and texts like the Bhagavata Purana

who assert that bhakti is a metapurushartha. In India in particular, the Vaisnava

theologians hold this position. Not only that. There is the strong belief that we are in

Kaliyuga and that bhakti is the best and the only way out. This belief is reinforced

by the fact that Bhakti is the most dominant mode of religious behavior in India

today. To take a sample, this is amply illustrated by the life and message of godly

people like Satya Sai Baba or Matha Arnrtananda Mai who prescribe nothing but

Bhakti.

(i). Basing himself on his study of the Bhagavata Purana, Subhash Anand

has argued that bhakti is a metapurushartha in the sense that besides being the most

effective means to attain the four purusharthas, it is also the ultimate meaning, the

sadhya of all the purusharthas and thus it takes us even beyond moksha

traditionally held to be the highest of the four.^

The Bhagavata puranaz affirms that the service of the Lord is the 'one and

only' means to secure all the four and to ensure our welfare. Thus, bhakti is not only

the safest means (sadhana) but also the highest end& the parama purushartha.4

For a man who surrenders himself to the Lord, the Lord himself appears as the

'fourfold fulfilment9.s If so all human striving finds its 'indefeasible fulfilment'

(acyuta-artha) in and through bhakti.

Love for the Lord enables the devotee to be detached,6 to simplify his life,

and to cut down his needs. He believes that the Lord is more concerned about him

than he himself can be, and that the earth can provide him all that he really needs.7

(ii). Even though this understanding of bhakti is true, the question remains:

What is even this bhakti meant for? Both the Bhagavata Purana and its student

Subhash Anand admit that Bhakti is not only not against secular involvement but it

positively helps us to be more genuinely concerned about the welfare of others. The

best example of this is Bhagavan Hari and his avatara, Krishna, who moves about in

the world, fully detached, seeking nothing but the 'good of the world'

(lokasarngraha).s

If this is true, then the real metapurushartha is not bhakti but lokasarngraha.

Here we may recall how Krishna in the Gita insists that Arjuna should do his duty for

the sake of lokasamgrahas. The point is that we need not renounce our secular

responsibilities in order to attain perfection. If even the Lord, the object of bhakti,

wants us to get involved in the world,~o lokasamgraha must be the ultimate goal as

far as our temporal life is concerned. Bhakti is, then, only a special means that makes

our secular involvement selfless and thereby authentic, and therefore Bhakti cannot

be considered a meta Purushartha.

5. God-realization: a Metapurushartha?

If lokasamgraha is the ultimate goal, the metapurushartha, what about The

Service of the Lord' the Bhagavada Purana emphasizes? How shall we account for the

position that the vision of God, God-realization, is our final goal? Is the love and

service of God our ultimate goal? Not only the vaisnava theologians in India but also

Christian theologians in the West have taken the position that 'service of the Lord' is

the metapurushartha. For instance, 'we created to love and serve the Lord', says St.

Ignatius of Loyola. How is this position compatible with our contention that

sawodaya is the metapurushartha?

Solution to this problem depends on what we mean when we speak of God.

When speaking of God what we usually have in mind is either his transcendence or

his immanence or both. All those whom we regard as having a God-realization tell us

clearly one thing: Transcendence of God defies description. So, whether we have all

God-realization or not, we are not authorized to say anything definite about the

transcendence of God. Whereas when we speak of the immanence of God we can say

for certain that lokasamgraha is the ultimate goal. For, according to many religions

God takes human form for the welfare of the world. This is attested by the theory of

avatars in Hinduism, the doctrine of incarnation in Christianity, etc. How this is

confirmed by the sacred texts like the Bible and the Gita is common knowledge and

therefore we can take it that even God has lokasamgraha as his goal.

Let us briefly illustrate this point from the Hindu traditions. That God is

immanent and his ultimate interest is in lokasamgraha is a theme that runs through

all the books of the Hindu traditions.11 What it means is that 'God is in everything

and everything is in God'. This is known as Panentheism which is different from

pantheism (meaning 'everything is God and God is everything'). The point of

Panentheism and immanence is strongly affirmed by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan:

The Hindu view rebels against the cold and formal conception of God who is external to the world and all together remote and transcendent. 12

We can cite at least 19 texts from the Bhagavad Gita alone which speak

explicitly of panentheism.13 Everything, even places, are signs of God.14

6. The Ideal of Jivan Mukti

The idea of Jivan mukti is also an indication that the ultimate goal is

lokasamgraha. For, Jivan mukti, emancipation while still in this life, is supposed

to be for the sake of those who are still in samsara, in bondage. The jivan mukta's

presence and fervor are a great source of consolation and inspiration for others.1~

According to the Bhagavad Gita, the guna-atitai6 which means jivan mukta

is expected to live for the welfare of all beings.17 And if we consider Janaka, Gandhi,

Samkara, Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, and many others like them as Jivan

Muktas in that they all led a liberated life, then it is obvious that their lives were fully

dedicated to the welfare of all, of course, in varying degrees.18

7. Satya Implies Sarvodaya

The Gandhian concept of satya which he identifies with dharma, moksha,

God etc as the highest goal also implies lokasamgraha as the ultimate goal. The

word satya is the verbal adjective of the root as (to be), and it may be translated as

'that which ought tc be'.ir Hence when one has satya, one has or rather, one is what

he ought to be, i. e., he has an authentic existence.20 One has a fully authentic

existence only when he is fully what he ought to, and therefore, can be.

How is this potentiality actualized? The power to love is the deepest potency

of man. This love is actualized when it is directed to the totality of reality including

God. And this is what Gandhi and our literary tradition mean by lokasamgraha.

Before elaborating what Gandhi has to say on Lokasamgraha, let us listen to how the

Bhagavata purana affirms it.

The Bhagavata purana repeatedly affirms that the bhakta is a man of universal

charity. He is 'equally disposed to all',zl 'views all equally1,22 bas mercy on al11,z3 is

'friendly to all',24 'desires the welfare of all'2s and is 'helpful to al11.z6 One teacher,

'an expert in the science of the spirit', classifies the devotees into three grades. The

highest bhakta makes no distinction, but loves all; while the second and third rate

bhaktas love God and other devotees, or only God, respectively.27 A real devotee

does not make the distinction of mine and not-mine, but 'views all equally'.zs

The Bhagavata purana defines satya as 'viewing all equally'.~!? One cannot

attain the highest form of bhakti without inculcating love for all men. Love for man is

the best service we can offer to God.30 and without this love for all, worship is but a

mockery, i t being as good as pouring the offering into the ashes.31 Real bhakti fosters

universal brotherhood..iz

Man's well being presupposes not only order within the society but also order

within the cosmos. The Bhagavada purana suggests that the more a man is governed

by dharma the more effectively does he become present in the cosmos, thereby

enhancing its availability to all.

Gandhi's view of the purusharthas, as we have summarized, also points to

lokasamgraha as the meta purushartha. Gandhi, like the mimamsakas and the

Buddhists, regarded dharma as the highest value. And in his view, dharma is

without meaning apart from lokasamgraha, the welfare of the whole world. Gandhi

says,

Man become.\ great exactly to the degree to which he works for the welfare of his fellow men.33

In Gandhian view, all the purusharthas ought to contribute to lokasamgraha.

Gandhi made this possible by reconciling the two apparently contradictory tendencies

in man - spiritual inwardness and extreme involvement, nivrtti and pravrtti. He

realized that inwardness can be fruitful and not escapist only in the context of the

world around us; and involvement in the world can be effective and not destructive

only in the context of the strength that comes through inwardness. In other words,

self-mastery and the service of others are interdependent aspects of life.

Thus, Gandhi (like Buddha) shows us the connection between the service of

the suffering humanity and the process of self-purification. Gandhi was an explicit

believer in advaita, 'the essential unity of God and man and for that matter of all that

lives1.34 One of the implications of this belief is this: It negates the belief that an

individual may gain spiritually and those that surround him suffer.3~

I1 A SYNOPTIC SUMMARY

1. Introduction

We have already given a thematic summary at the beginning and end of every

chapter. We do not therefore intend to repeat those summaries in this final Chapter in

a chronological order. Rather, What we propose to do here is to give a general view, a

synoptic summary, recapitulating some of the salient points that emerge from our

deliberations so far. We began our discussion by asking the question: What are the

things that are ultimately worth aiming at in life? After taking a closer look at this

fundamental question of the meaning and goal of life, we examined the Indian

answer to it. The fourfold scheme of purusharthas is the Indian answer. This

answer, we discovered, is an essentially sound one. But we also realized that this

soundness has not been sufficiently highlighted. We therefore embarked on an

appraisal and updating of our thinking on the purusharthas. And we have made this

process visual enough in the light of the Story of Rishyasringa.

2. A Priori Conditions

The main point of our thesis may be formulated in philosophical terms as

follows: The purusharthas are the a priori conditions of being a human being.

(They are like the Kantian categories). That is, the purusharthas are the grounds of

the possibility of human life. The only condition for the validity of this assumption is

that the purusharthas are to be treated as interacting. In other words, the

purusharthas in their mutuality is what makes life human. They make us human

because they are cornpresent in every one of experiences. That they are cornpresent

in every one of our experiences means that the purusharthas are interactional,

reciprocal. If so, they compliment each other and control the extreme tendencies of

each other. And thus in their mutuality they enable us to realize our ultimate goal

which may be termed as sarvodaya or Logasamgraha.

3. Normative Orientations

To convert this philosophical formulation of the main point of our thesis into

ethical language: the purusharthas are what give us a normative orientation to life.

For, they signify all those goals the pursuit of which is expressive of our nature as a

whole. In other words, the purusharthas form the basis of a practical and

comprehensive philosophy of life. Our particular purposes, values, are only

expressions of the general principles called the purusharthas.

In other words, the purusharthas are to be treated as normative orientations

because they give us a sense of direction and thus make our integral growth possible.

This integrated view of life and approach to growth can certainly go a long way in

making the earth a better place to live in, in the sense that they can bring about in us a

healthy change of attitude to ourselves and to others including the Mother Earth.

4. An Ethico-Philosophical Postulate

The above formulation of our thesis is an ethico-philosophical postulate. The

truth of this postulate cannot directly be proved scientifically; its truth can only be and

ought to be assumed. For, a priori conditions are like the postulates of Induction

which cannot be proved but must be taken for granted as a sine qua non conditio of

all scientific proofs. However, indirect, pragmatic, proofs are possible. We have

given such an indirect proof with the help of the Story of Rishyasringa and with our

exposition of the ecological crisis. What is thus indirectly proved beyond doubt is

this: To follow any one particular purushartha exclusively would be to negate it as a

purushartha. For example, kama without the mediation of the other three

purusharthas would not be human desire. Or, Moksha without regard for the other

three purusharthas would not be selfless. The point is that all the four purusharthas

are compresent in every one of our experience. This is what we mean when we say

that the purusharthas define the transcendental a priori framework of human life.

What happens if this integrated scheme of life is neglected? Then the results

are surely ills in individual and social life. This is perhaps one of the reasons why

Veda-Vyasa cried out:

I cry with arms uplifted, but none hears! Artha and Kama result from Dharma; why then is i t not followed?3o

But none listerred, and the Kauravas, Pandavas, and the Yadnvas all came lo

destruction.

Two world wars, each far more destructive than the Mahabharata War, in

the first half of the 20th century, have illustrated this law: Grab, greed, hate and lust

are followed by vast butcheries.

Hindu India strained the rules of true dharma when it advocated in theory the

equality of all in relation to Brahman, but in practice negated it by an atrocious

multiplication of mutually repellent castes and sub-castes, thereby weakening the

integriQ of thr, social system and falling an easy prey lo foreign aggression, first

Muslim, then European, which not only seized its body, but also made an assault upon

its spiritual citadel by capturing the imagination of the socially neglected, degraded,

and oppressed classes by an offer of social equality.37

5. Philosophical Pessimism Ruled out

As already argued for, the point of the thesis is: All the purusharthas are

compresent in every one of our experiences. Though this point sounds rather

abstract, it is nevertheless true. If true, it has several implications that are important

for our understanding of the purusharthas. Some of these important implications are

briefly stated below.

One of the implications is that our thesis ~ l e s out philosophical pessimism.

Any one who accepts our interpretation of the theory of purusharthas can see that

philosophical pessimism has no place in life. For, the theory of purusharthas is an

affirmation that life is meaningful. Therefore, as we have seen, philosophical

pessimism cannot stand to reason. Not only that life is meaningful but also that it can

be meaningful in a variety of senses as the distinctions we have made show. Of

course, this does not mean that all purposes are meaningful purposes. Purpose, to be

meaningful, has to signify value(s).

In so far as this is so, our thesis also invalidates the utilitarian view. what is

the ultimate value that makes our life purposeful? The answer is that the intrinsic

worth of life is itself the ultimate value. If the ultimate goal is to live, the utilitarian

view that happiness is the ultimate goal cannot be true. Life is often regarded as worth

living even without happiness. As a matter of fact, most people behave just as if just

being alive is intrinsically good. Of course, this is not to forget that though life is

worthwhile even without happiness, life has to be taken in its 'ordinary' sense. And

purusharthas are what makes our life 'ordinary' in the sense that they give form and

content to it. In short, we might say that life has intrinsic value and therefore its goal

is to live and that the purusharthas are what give content to this goal.

6. Interactional rather than Hierarchical

Another important implication of our thesis concerns the interrelationship

among the various purusharthas. Our discussion has clearly brought out the point that

the Purusharthas are interactional rather than hierarchical. Also, being interactional,

they together form one singe goal. What happens if the purusharthas are not /

regarded as interactional and thus forming one single goal? The result would become

destructive of the individual as well as of the society. This is proved by the fact that

in the absence of mutual control artha becomes materialistic quest, kama becomes

lust, dharma becomes legalistic and ritualistic and moksha becomes a kind of escape

from the reality of the world.

Therefore the purusharthas are to be taken as interactional and thus

forming one single goal. But this single goal need not be the ultimate goal. As said

already, to live is the ultimate goal, the paramapurushartha. For it has an intrinsic

value. But since this goal (to live) is not traditionally named as the purushartha and

since it is highly formal and abstract, we call it the metapurushartha and to make it

concrete we call i t lokasarngraha. What gives content to lokasamgraha and thus

makes it operational is the traditional four fold scheme of purusharthas. And, in

fact, no one has ever questioned the relevance of our living for lokasamgraha. On

the contrary, every body, liberated or not yet liberated, has affirmed it as a must. In

short, the ideal of lokasarngraha, is relevant for all times because it is the only

comprehensive ideal that would take care of all the problems of our being part of this

samsara.

7. Mutuality

This interactional interpretation of the purusharthas makes one thing crystal

clear: In the absence of mutuality a purushartha ceases to be a purushartha in the full

sense of the term. Dharma, for instance, comes to have meaning only because there

are the other purusharthas. Dharma is the most important constituent of trivarga.

Dharma is the principle that regulates the other purusharthas and therethrough our life.

Historically, dharma may be understood as 'code of conduct'. Its sources are said to

be sruti, smrti, sadacara and atmatusti. These four sources are to be taken as a

matrix of interacting iactors. Dharma is divided into three - samanya, visesa and

rnoksha. The traditional interpretation of dharma raises some problems such as what

to choose in case of a conflict between the various sources of dharma, and the

question of why should I practice dharma? The answer is Tat tvam asi.

Similarly, Artha, the acquisitive principle, ceases to be a purushartha if

unrelated to the other purusharthas. we have seen that it signifies power, both

economic and political. Artha, according to the Arthasastra, has preeminence in the

sense that i t makes the other purusharthas possible. But it does not follow from this

that artha is also the most important. Artha is to be pursued in accordance with

dharma. Gandhi goes a step further and considers artha (politics) as an aspect of

dharma. In short, artha comes to have meaning only in relation to the other

purusharthas. If artha is an aspect of our daily life and if it cannot therefore be taken

in isolation, then one thing is certain: The doctrine of double standards is not really

tenablc.

Our understanding of Kama is also interactional. our general traditional

position is that kama like artha, is to be regulated by dharma and oriented to moksha

and this is how kama forms part of the scheme of purusharthas. For instance, kama,

which should not even be contemplated before the end of one's education (a point the

college students may take note of) was considered a prelude to dharma. And, neither

kama nor dharma could be pursued without the status and means afforded by the

successful practice of artha. Then as now, there was no romance without finance.

But, to see kama in relation to the other purusharthas is not to minimize its

role in our daily life. Kama, we have seen, is the instinctive principle in us which

prompts us to act; It means both desire and the object of desire. Our traditional

understanding of kama advocates the maintenance of life rather than the renunciation

of life. A kama-oriented life has a positive role to play in our well-being. This does

not in any way mean that there was no puritanical outlook on life. The point is that in

general we do not find a dichotomy between the enjoyment of pleasure (like the

sexual) and the pursuit of spiritual interests. In short, we are a people who delight in

both the things of the senses and the things of the spirit.

Moksha likewise comes to have meaning only in relation to the other

purusharthas. As already said, moksha means both freedom from and freedom to.

Of these, if we emphasize the aspect of freedom to then moksha cannot certainly be

properly understood except in its relation to the other purusharthas. Also, this aspect

of freedom to is confirmed by the position of several thinkers that moksha is to be

sought within the world rather than away from it. For example, according to

Nagarjuna of the Mahayana school of Buddhism, Moksha is to be found within the

world by those who can see what the world really is at bottom. This view is based on

the philosophy that all phenomena are really grounded in one transcendental Reality.

That is, this conception of moksha is based on the philosophy of the unity of all

beings.38

8. The Question of Hierarchy

Another implication of our thesis is that the traditional understanding of

hierarchy among the purusharthas is done away with. Instead, we have given the

purusharthas an interactional interpretation. If this interpretation holds, then it

invalidates the unquestioned assumption of superiority among the purusharthas. (By

implication i t also invalidates the assumption of superiority among castes or

ashramas). In other words, what render the question of hierarchy among the

purusharthas irrelevant are the interaction and the consequent exercise of mutual

control.

No doubt. this interactional interpretation is indeed a philosophical one. And

from this philosophical point of view there cannot be a hierarchy among the

purusharthas. But looked at from the point of view of our cultural tradition, the reality

of hierarchy cannot be denied, assuming that we are justified in making a distinction

between the two points of view - the philosophical and the cultural.

9. An Integral Trait of Indian Culture

The distinction just made brings us to another implication of our thesis: The

theory of purusharthas is an integral trait of our Culture. This we have illustrated

mainly in the context of the Mahabharata. That too, in the context of the Story of

Rishyasringa in particular. This contextualization is justified on two grounds. First,

because the Purusharthas are the central concern of this great epic. Secondly

because the Mahahharata is still widely loved and vividly told in our countryside

and in our cultural life.

What this contextualization of the discussion reveals is significant: The

Mahahharata and therethrough the purusharthas continue to have their impact on

us even today. For, as far as our values and ideals are concerned, our present day

society is not basically different from the kind of society this ithihasa discloses. To

put it figuratively, our discussion of the purusharthas is sprinkled with the fragrance

of our living past which has molded our character and ideals. In other words, the

scheme of purusharthas pervades our whole culture.

Looking at our cultural tradition, we can boldly infer at least three things. 1.

The theory of purusharthas is not limited to any particular school of philosophy or

to any particular religion or to any particular text. Rather, it goes beyond any such

confines and remains an inalienable trait of our cultural background as a whole. 2.

Our cultural tradition not only affirms the meaningfulness of life but it also upholds

the maintenance of life. In other words, what is demanded by the theory of

purusharthas is transformation of life rather than its negation in the sense of

renunciation of life. 3. Maintaining a positive attitude towards life, our tradition

presents an integrated view of life.

If we are right in these observations, then the interpretation, by some, of the

traditional Indian attitude as 'world-and-life-negating' is not really founded. This is

not to deny, of course, that one cannot gather isolated texts to prove a pessimistic

outlook on life if one wants to. Similarly, to say that the theory of purusharthas

affirms an integrated approach to life does not mean that this has always been the

case.

In fact. there is a neglected strand of Indian tradition. Namely, karma yoga

or spiritual realization through social action which is associated with our classical

heroes like Rama and Janaka. But it must be remembered with gratitude that this

neglected strand of our tradition has been reaffirmed in modern India by Gandhi,

Vivekananda, Aurobindo, and others.39

All that is meant is: our cultural tradition, on the whole, has considered the

temporal pursuits such as kama and artha equally important as the spiritual pursuits

such as dharma and moksha.

10. A Dangerous Fallacy

Another serious implication of our thesis is this: To follow any one or two

purusharthas in isolation is a dangerous fallacy. This cardinal point of our thesis we

have amply illustrated by the Story of Rishyasringa and that of the present day

ecological impasse. The Story of Rishyasringa shows how the exclusive following of

any one purusharthas is a grave fallacy. It is not like a logical fallacy which only

renders one's argument invalid but does not make one culpable. Whereas the

exclusive pursuit of any one purushartha is a fallacy in the sense that our life would

not then be human life. In other words, a purushartha ceases to be a purushartha

if followed exclusively. That is, purusharthas in their mutuality is what makes our

life meaningful. To show how this is so and thus to appraise and update our thinking

on the purusharthas has been our central concern.

The undesirable consequences of our exclusive following of any one or two of

the purusharthas is also evident in our ecological crisis today. The crisis is that as a

consequence of our excessive kama-artha tendencies our mother Earth is being done

to death. Nuclear Wars, misemployment, famine, abuse of topsoil, cult of machines,

deforestation, elimination of species. exploitation of Nations are only some of factors

that exhibit our greed to possess and consume and our ignorance of the whole. All

this contributes to our matricide. It is high time that we realize that it is not that the

Earth belongs to us; rather, that it is we who belong to the Earth.

11. The Ideal of Lokasamgraha

Another implication of our thesis is that there is need for positing a

metapurushartha. True, from a philosophical point of view, it can be argued that the

theory of trivarga is self-complete. But when looked at from a historiw-cultural point

of view, the theory of trivarga is incomplete and that may perhaps be the reason why

moksha is introduced and thus we have the chaturvarga theory of purusharthas.

According to this chaturvarga theory, moksha is the purushartha proper and the other

purusharthas are purusharthas only in an extended sense. In other words, speaking

from our :ultural point of view, there is a gradation among the purusharthas and they

are all purusharthas but not in the same sense.

Given the limitations of each purushartha taken individually, some have

thought of positing a metapurushartha. Bhakti, atmasaksatkara, Jivan Mukti etc, have

been thought of as metapumsharthas by different people. But on closer analysis we

find that such metapu~sharthas are ultimately aimed at the welfare of all beings

called sarvodaya or logasamgraha. Therefore, the real metapurushartha to be posited

is sarvodaya or logasamgraha.

That the purusharthas in their mutuality enable us to realize our ultimate goal

of logasamgraha is illustrated by the Story of Rishyasringa thus: The wellbeing of

the Kingdom of Anga is a symbol of our ultimate goal of Logasamgraha. In order to

have sufficient rain for the prosperity of the Kingdom of Anga all the purusharthas -

all the resources both natural and human - are pooled together and are made to

interact.

Besides this interactional aspect, the Story highlights the ideal of

Logasamgraha in another significant manner: The Sage Lomasa who told this story

concludes i t by giving us the following advice: "Spend your lives in mutual love and

worship of God, after the example of great men". What is to be taken note of here is

this: Our tradition regards as great only those who have pursued all the purusharthas

in their mutuality for the sake of logasamgraha in one way or other.

We posit Logasamgrha as the ultimate goal (Metapurushartha) also because

of a philosophical argument in social ethics. Namely, the Purusharthas are to be

regarded as Social Goals. Artha and Dharma are clearly social goals in the sense that

they can meaningfully be sought only in a social world. Kama and Moksha are also

social goals though they are not usually understood that way. So there is the need to

clarify whether these two are really social goals. Let us take kama first.

In the sense of agreeable experience. kama may be personal. But in the

context of the theory of purusharthas, kama is largely a social value. That is, the

theory seems to stress the experience as the result of the satisfaction of desires

rather than the experience per se. For, the point the theory highlights is that the

221

fulfilment of desires involves some social interaction. This is clear from the question

of how kama is related to the other purusharthas. According to the theory, any kama

is ok only if it is in accordance with dharma. Artha is a sine qua non conditio for the

satisfaction of kama. If kama is subject to dharma and dependent on artha then it

cannot but have some social impact. It is this interpersonal impact of our desires

whose fulfilment is categorized as the purushartha of kama.

Is it not logically possible to have a desire whose fulfilment need not

necessarily involve any reference to any one else? Perhaps yes. It may even be

empirically possible in the sense that kama can include desires which may be regarded

as personalistic. e.g. the desire to attain mental peace by meditation. Even if this is

so, the point of the theory of purusharthas we are making is different: Its accent falls

on desires that are social.

What is the basis for determining the value of agreeable feelings resulting

from the satisfaction of desires? According to the theory of purusharthas, what

determines the value of pleasures is the value given to the object of desire. Doing

charity produces a higher pleasure than the one malevolence does. For, charity is

regarded as a higher value than malevolence. In short, the trivarga are social goals.

Of these, Dharma is a necessary condition for any successful pursuit of kama and

artha. Besides, it is dharma which determines which kanla is worth pursuing and

which kama is not.

Now, how about Moksha? It also ought to be taken as a social goal. Before

explaining how this is so, let us have a word on the nature of Moksha. We have seen

that it is the spiritual principle. Etymologicaliy, it is the state of being liberated as

well as the process of becoming free. This concept of moksha might have originated

either from our fear of death or from our unjust state of affairs. Origins apart, the

concept of moksha got more and more refined as well as sophisticated as our styles

V L (schools) of thought developed down the centuries. This development is evident as,go

R t h ~ u g h our Vedas, Upanishads, the Mahabharata and other texts and the various

schools of thought.

What is the nature of this goal? Some say that the concept of Moksha is

personalistic; According to some others, it is social. But our analysis tend to show

that i t is perhaps both. For, Moksha means freedom both freedom from and freedom

to. If we take it to mean freedom from then it can reasonably be interpreted as a

personalistic goal. If we take it to mean freedom to then it can reasonably be shown

to be a social goal. This is the reason why we say that it is perhaps both personalistic

and social. Of course this is not to deny the fact that, when looked at from our

predominant traditional point of view, the accent often falls on freedom from and

therefore on its personalistic aspect.

Though moksha can be shown to be a personalistic goal from a philosophical

point of vie&, it really ought to be a social goal. This is evident when we stress its

'freedom-to' aspect. In fact, many like Gandhi and Buddha have held that the desire

for one's own salvation as selfish at bottom. And as if demonstrating this fact,

Buddha even after his enlightenment continued to live and work for the liberation of

suffering beings. In the place of personal liberation, the Mahayana school of

Buddhism establishes the 'liberation of all sentient beings' as the ultimate spiritual

aspiration:

The vow that a devour Mahayanist is expected to take is that he would try to achieve

the state of Enlightenment, Bodhisattva (the Wisdom-state-of-existence), not to live

aloof from the world hut to work with perfect wisdom and love among the multitudes

of suffering beings for removing their misery and achieving fheirsalvation.40

In the final analysis, the ideal of jivanmukti is also aimed at the ideal of

logasamgrha. Buddha is one of the best examples of such jivanmuktas who are well

known for their selfless service of fellow beings.

12. Universifiable

Another obvious implication of our thesis is that the theory of purusharthas,

though of Indian origin, has a universality and necessity about them. The meaning of

life in terms of its ultimate goal - purushartha - is a matter of utmost concern to

every human being. Since the theory of purusharthas is a fundamental reflection on

the meaning of life, it cannot be limited to any particular period of history and

tradition though we confined our discussion to the Indian context for practical

purposes. All that we are saying is that in so far as the theory of purusharthas justify

the motivational structure of human behavior and conduct it is valid for all times and

places. Considering our constant conflict and illusory quest referred to at the end of

the initial chapter, this explanation of the underlying motives of our behavior and

conduct is valid for all times in the sense that the four fold scheme of pumsharthas is

universalizablc. In other words, the theoretical outlook on life the theory of

purusharthas convey is surely universifiable.

13. Moksha Along with the World

One of the very important implications of this way of understanding the

pumsharthas is that our moksha is not from the world but is along with the world.

We have seen that the ecological crisis is one of the undesirable consequences of our

exclusive and excessive kama-artha tendencies. Also, while discussing this crisis we

discovered that we humans and the Nature are companions in our fortunes as well as

in our misfortunes. To put it in our traditional technical language, we are companions

in our experience of samsara resulting from our avidya. It is therefore naturally

reasonable to infer that we must also be companions in our mukti (liberation). If this

inference is granted, then the age old belief that we are finally freed from the world is

totally unacceptable. Rather, what is acceptable is, as Pope John Paul 11 has put it

clearly, that we are freed along with the world rather than from the world.41 Here it

is not out of place to recall that one of the prayers Jesus of Nazareth prayed was not to

take away the disciples from the world.

14. Moksha - a Matter of Practical Philosophy

Conceptually moksha is ontological in nature. If so, the concept of moksha is

descriptive in nature rather than prescriptive. This means that it cannot be a

prescriptive (normative) concept like justice. It is often argued that moksha is not

only descriptive but it is also an ideal state of knowledge. But this is a point of

dispute among scholars. This only shows that there is logical unclarity with regard to

the nature of rnoksha (and therefore also with regard to the kind of immortality people

have in mind). All that we can confidently affirm is that the idea of moksha (and

therefore that of immortality) is a matter of faith and therefore belongs to practical

philosophy in the sense that moksha (and immortality) are ideals to be actualized.

Another point of dispute concerns the relationship between Moksha and Indian

Philosophy. Most of the historians of Indian philosophy hold the view that Moksha

and Indian philosophy are integrally related. That is, Moksha is the central concern of

Indian Philosophy and that is why Indian philosophy can be regarded as spiritual. But

the truth of this common belief depends on what is really meant by spiritual. If by

spiritual we mean that which is opposed to what is material then this common belief is

not true. For, practically every school of Indian philosophy admits the reality of

matter. Therefore, from a philosophical point of view, the widespread belief that

lndian philosophy is spiritual is not really sound.

What then is the explanation for this common contention? The explanation is

to be found in our age old practice of accepting the spiritual goal of moksha as the

ultimate goal of life. Given this trait of our culture, it is understandable that anything,

to be respectable had to be related to moksha in some way or other. Hence,

philosophy like other disciplines came to be thought of as mainly concerned with

moksha, even when as a matter of fact it had mighty little to do with moksha.

15. Our National Flag - A Symbol of Purusharthas

By way of concluding this discussion of purusharthas, let us salute our

National Flag. the distinctive symbol of our country and culture. For, besides being

the symbol of our freedom, it also signifies the ideals we live for. Since the

purusharthas are our ideals, we may be justified in interpreting our National Flag as

representing the purusharthas.

According to Vexillologists, flags are artifacts expressive of the culture of

certain times and places. Ours is a purushartha-culture which our National Flag so

colorfully symbolizes. To understand this symbolism, we must look at how our

National Flag is designed. It is a horizontal tri-color of deep saffron (Kesari) at the

top, pure white in the middle and dark green at the bottom in equal proportion. In the

center of the white band is a wheel, in navy blue, which represents charkha (Khadi

Spinning Wheel). Its design is that of the wheel (Chakra) which appears on the

abacus of the Sarnath Lion Capital of Asoka.42

The color combination together with the wheel at the center of the flag when

flown may be taken as an interpretation of the interrelationship of the various

purusharthas and their dynamism. If we take the color of saffron to represent our

desire (the instinctive principle in us), then it symbolizes the kama-purushartha.

Similarly, if we take green to represent prosperity (the acquisitive principle in us), it

symbolizes the artha-purushartha. White is certainly a symbol of purity (the spiritual

principle in us) and it can therefore quite easily become a representation of the

moksha-purushartha. And finally the wheel, the symbol of order and progress (the

guiding principle in us), can be taken as a representation of the dharma-purushartha.

If we are right in this interpretation, then our National Flag is indeed a visual

statement of how the various purusharthas are integrally related. In fact, no other

symbol in our culture has expressed the mutuality and interaction of the four

purusharthas better.

Gandhiji's understanding of the purushar thas and of their interrelationship

can be taken as a confirmation of our interpretation of the National Flag. For he

believed in the fundamental unity of life and he conceived the various purushar thas

as involving each other. Given the reciprocity of the purushar thas as Gandhiji saw

it, our inherited notions of individualism and saintliness become out dated.

Challenging these notions. Gandhiji considered Satya which implies sarvodaya as the

highest human value. This is in fact evident in our 'National motto: Satyameva

Jayate'.

REFERENCES

Subhash Anand, "Bhakti: a Meta-pumshartha" Jeevadhara, 67,1982, pp.52-68.

The Bhagavata-Purana. (the Gita Press, Gorakhpur, 1971,4.8.41

Ihid.. 7.7 55.

Ihid., 5.617

Ibid.. caturnidha-artha, 11.29.33: 11.19.24

Ibid., vairagya, 1.7.

lbid., 2.2.4-5; Also, cf. S. Anand, "Spiritual Discipleship as Described hy the Bhagavatd Purana." Indian Theological Studies. XV, pp.34-35.

The Bhagavata Purana, 1.3.10; 10.80. 30.

Bhagavad Gita, 3.20-22

Bhagavata Purana, 5.1.23

Swami Abhishiktananda, Hindu-Christian Meeting Point. The lnstltute of Indian Culture, Bombay, 1969. p.69.

The Hindu View of Life, Allen and Unwin, London, 1961, p. 51

The Bhagavad Gita.6.29-31; 11.38; 9.4; 15.17; 9.18; 10.20: 9.17-18; 7.10; 14.4: 15.4: 11.18; 8.22: 8.21; 7.6; 13.3; 1.9ff; 10.8: 6.30-31; 18.61.

Bede Griffiths, Return to the Center, Fount Paper backs, 2nd Impression. London. 1981. p. 12.

S. Anand. "Jivan-Multi or Liberation in this Life"

The Bhagavata Purana, 4.12-26.

This is how Vidyaranya who lived in the 14th century and is the author of Jivan-mukti Viveka understands it. cf. S. Anand, op. cit. p. 180, 184.

cf. C.. Valiaveetil. Liberated Life: Ideal of Jivanmukti i n Iodian Religions specially in Saiva Sidhanla, Dialogue series I, Madurai, 1980, p. 59.

F. lelhorn. A Grammar of the Sanskrit Language, Vara~asi, Chawkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Rep. 1970, pp. 238-42 and 274.

S. Anand, "Satyam eva jayate", Mission in India, Yoona, Ishvani Kendra Series No. 7, 1979, pp. 5-13.

The Bhagavata Purana, sarva-hhuta-sama, 11.252; samana-ultama madhyama-adhama, 4.20.13.

Ibid.. sama-drs 1.4.: sama-darsin. 11.26:27; tulya-darsana, 1.5:24

Ibid.. sarva-bhuta-daya, 3.9.12.

lbid . maltra. 3.27.8; sarva-dehi-suhrt. 3.25.21.

Ibid..sarva-hhuta-hita-atma. 4.21 18.

Ibid.. sarva-upakaraka. 11.11.29.

Ibid. 11 2.45-47.

Ibid.. 11 .?.52.

Ibid.. satyam ca samadarsanam 11.19.37

Ibid.. 3.9.12.

Ibid.. 3.29. 21-2.

Ibid.. 9.21 where we have the moving story of King Rantideva who shares the on11 meal he has with a Brahmin. a Sudra, and an outcast.

Ethical Religion, (niti dharma), Ganesan, 1922, Trans. by Rama Iyer. p.54.

Young India, Drc. 1924

Ibid.

Mababharata. 18.5.62

Bharataratna Dhagavan Das, 'Introduction' lo The Cultural Heritage of India, Vol.iv, Calcutta. Ramakrishna Mission Institute, p.15.

38. Satischandra Chatterjee & Dhirendramohan Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, 7th ed., University of Calcutta,l968, pp. 157-8.

39. Swami Vivekananda, "Karma Yoga", Speeches and Writings of Swami Vivekananda, Natesan. 1934; Sri Aurobindo, The Ideal of the Karmayogin, Aurobindo Ashram Press, 1950. (Of coursr, there is a difference to remember: Unlike either Vivekananda or Aurobindo. Gandhi believed strongly that the time had come for the purification of politics and the reformation of religion in lndia).

40. Satischandra Chattcrjec & Dhirendrarnohan Datta, An Introduction to Indian philosophy, p. 156-7.

41. 1990 Peace Day Message), No. 5.

42. This des~gn of our National Flag was adopted by the Constituent Axsemhly of lndia on 22nd July, 1947.