Now, with the advent of democracy, our lives are full of constant turmoil. The king reigned over a kingdom that was subject to rule by a single ruler. Democracy, on the other hand, has many leaders. It is difficult to achieve consensus with multiple leaders - more so about wealth and its distribution. So, what is theoretically thought to be a multi-leader system practically results in anarchy. A few are vocal for agriculture; others swear by machines and factories; some others claim that regardless of whether agriculture or industrialisation is followed, exporting to other countries and earning foreign exchange is more valuable. Thus, while a few pull towards the bank, others pull towards the water-tank. The lives of those between are scattered and splintered.
To resolve this difficulty, two things must happen.
- Determine which of agriculture, industry or commerce enables the best economic system.
- This decision should be accepted by the population who in turn should insist to the government that this be implemented. Will such changes come by easily, though? Is that possible even in the span of a few years? It does not appear so.
If large scale industry is a bane, the dominance of large scale industry is a bigger bane. With excessive industrialisation, life in western countries has suffered.
- The economic situation in European countries whose monetary systems we are trying to emulate is deteriorating. To compete with other countries, industrial output has to increase. The labour force is becoming more assertive. As a result, there is growing friction between management and employees.
- The worker in a large factory earns what he needs for physical sustenance. However, even with that gain there is no scope for moral evolution or mental growth. The only day of rest that he gets every week is enough only to eat well, drink well, sleep, and forget his strain. Where is the time for him to pursue poetry and other fine arts? Or spare time to gain insight into human culture or spiritual education? The worker in the factory is akin to a beast of burden. The beast of burden might be chewing its cud as it moves around. The worker too might relish a candy while he works. Any more friendship or enjoyment for him at work is hard to get. The Westerners have now begun to realise this inhuman extreme.
- Every country in the world is pressing forward to increase its industrial production. Everybody is building cloth mills. Everybody is trying to make more iron and steel. Everybody is assembling more trains and automobiles. Even so-called backward countries, such as those in Africa and Asia, are trying hard to build factories to become self-sufficient as well as export their manufactured goods to other countries. When even they have started competing, who will buy their goods? Who is selling those goods? Who profits? This starts friction between countries. All struggles between countries and populations in the present world are rooted in economic competition. The first competition among countries is in sourcing raw materials. The second struggle is to find consumers for their produced goods. This is the picture today. Those good men aspiring for world peace must first think about this. They say no to war. They insist upon signing nuclear non-proliferation treaties. They call for disarmament. Can peace result from such endeavours? While desire sizzles in the gut, while arms and sinews pulse with energy, while rivalry blazes in the mind, a lesson on peace can achieve nothing more than a mockery of peace. The first thing required for world peace, hence, is to remove this competition for wealth. Messages from saints and peace activists are not sufficient here. Countries and people need education achieved through experience of hardship. Who knows when and how such an education might be successful?
At this critical juncture, the duty of the students of the Gītā is clear. They cannot stand perplexed and listless in these harsh circumstances. Offering up international and social problems to the divine, it is apt for them to select their occupations according to their innate qualities and abilities. Whether by birth he be a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, a vaiṣya or a śūdra, let him choose a vocation that is appropriate to him at that time as long as that does not impede his main dharma. By “main dharma” is indicated the dharma that applies to each one. This has been discussed before as well. Whatever the circumstances, it is everyone’s duty to earn money for one’s basic necessities and maintain one’s family in a just manner. Of all the dharmas, earning one’s living is the most important. One who does not earn one’s own living will have to depend on others to provide or worse, will have to steal from others. Those are respectively indicated by parigraha (accepting wealth) and steya (stealing). But the Gītā teaches asteya and aparigraha, which is the same as earning a just living.
kuśalāt + na pramaditavyam |
(Welfare is not to be neglected)
bhūtyai na pramaditavyam |
(Prosperity is not to be neglected)
-Taittirīya Upaniṣad
Such is the dictum of the Veda. During dire situations, the maxim that helps us maintain the preceding edict is āpad-dharma. When it is not possible to follow vocations that belong to one’s own varṇa, one can choose to perform another duty that is not totally in opposition to one’s natural vocation. While the duties of a varṇa are important, earning a just keep is even more important - a livelihood with asteya and aparigraha. It is enough if the new chosen vocation is not inimical to the purity of the jīva or to spiritual thoughts.
3. The question of women’s rights and duties
Whatever we discussed about varṇas and occupations applies to women as well. Our sisters are enjoined to walk closely with tradition and protect it. Amidst all the economic upheaval in the present era, it would be remiss to assume that the welfare of womenfolk would be the same as it was in olden ages. It has become difficult to care for the family as much as in the days gone. These days, it is not improper for women to earn money to take care of their families. In many cases, it has even become necessary. But such earning must be truthful and within the limits of propriety. There are more than enough opportunities and attractions that transgress the border of propriety. Wherever a woman has to work with different kinds of people - in factories or offices outside home - propriety breaking inducements and encouragements for immorality can be seen. With sufficient mental strength and a sense of duty to face and defeat such enticements, it would not be improper for a woman to work to support her family. One should carefully weigh the qualities and defects in every profession. The choice of a profession for either man or woman has to be made from the perspective of self-elevation after discerning merits and demerits in the profession. Even then, the responsibility on women is greater.
What did Arjuna say?
strīṣu duṣṭāsu vārṣṇeya jāyate varṇasaṅkaraḥ |
-BG 1.41
The intent of those assertions in the manusmṛti that seemingly limit the freedom of the feminine class is the same as what Arjuna indicated.
When Jesus was preaching, his rivals with an intention to trap him into a political crime, questioned him - “O Jesus. You are claiming to be the representative of the divine and the son of god. But the one who is ruling us is Caesar, the Roman Emperor. Who should we pay tribute to? To you or to Caesar’s representative?”. Jesus answered thus:
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
-Mark: XII.17
This separation is apt for the students of the Gītā as well. To the world has to be given what the world deserves. In other words - social propriety and morality in actions have to be adhered to apropos the world. Those that are due to the inner self - detachment, controlling one’s sense instruments, being dispassionate, and other purifying actions - have to be given to the inner self. Transactions should be restricted to a transactional world. What befits the absolute needs to be offered to the absolute.
The recent example (1964) of the relationship between an English politician and a call girl and similar incidents in America show examples of the negative effects of too much freedom to women. Foreign norms of man-woman relationships are not worthy of emulation by the Hindus. It is not that foreigners lack purity and morality. But if they slip and descend from their standards, we do not need to follow them.
When there is excess indulgence in pleasure and wealth, making them the sole goals of human life, the practice of morality is lost. This indicates a fall of all kinds. There are so many examples in history of several powerful kingdoms decaying and disappearing because of slipping moral values. It is said that the Roman empire went to destruction due to decadence. Keeping this in mind, it is important to protect the purity and morality in man-woman relationships even as a patriotic duty.
To be continued...
The present series is a modern English translation of DVG’s Kendra Sahitya Akademi Award-winning work, Bhagavad-gītā-tātparya or Jīvana-dharma-yoga. The translators wish to express their thanks to Śatāvadhāni R Ganesh for his valuable feedback and to Hari Ravikumar for his astute edits.
