A philosophy for a participatory or collaborative culture

Perhaps we are waiting for a western philosopher to discover more of ancient Indian philosophy, re-pack it in western form, and deliver it as ‘latest advances’ or ‘updates’ on our ‘knowledge’, at a ‘prestigious’ international conference held in a western capital – like how our intelligentsia are now ‘discovering’ the value of meditation in mindfulness, or compassion in care ethics. It would indeed be wonderful if we could take the ideas of intellectuals like Susantha Hewa more seriously.

By Panduka Karunanayake

Let me congratulate Susantha Hewa on his article (The Island, 02 October) conceptualising ‘the new normal’ as participatory culture: an extension of the position ‘you are not safe until everyone is safe’. He has proposed to see altruism as an extension of self-centred or individualistic behaviour, rather than think of these as two opposite poles. Further, he has said that this is valuable not only to achieve healthcare goals, such as controlling the pandemic, but also wider societal goals, such as economic and political ones. This is a fundamental problem of human society that was simmering for a long time, now made more crucial by the pandemic.

The one specific point that I disagree on is that the selfish culture is due to ‘the market’. I have already written about this (The Island, 20 September).

But coming back to the bigger issue, we need a philosophy that incorporates both altruistic and self-centred behaviours as complementary facets of our lives. The secret to achieving this is to align individual and collective goals, rather than portray them as incongruous or adversarial. The secret to aligning them is to find a philosophical model that incorporates both, rather than juggle with two mutually exclusive models.

Ancient Indian philosophy

I think that ancient Indian philosophy has shown us how to do this. The model it proposed is simple and elegant. It can be applied to our day-to-day situations easily. Indeed, it is a good model for what westerners call practical ethics or applied ethics.

Ancient Indian philosophy categorised our tasks in life into four hierarchical goals: from top to bottom, these were called moksha, dharma, artha and kaama (not to be mistaken with karma). Whatever we may do to achieve a goal at any one level should not be at the expense of the goals at higher levels.

The four levels

At the bottom of this hierarchy is kaama: the indulgence in sensual pleasures. Ancient Indian philosophy, which is essentially life-affirming, did not consider this as a sin. But it said that this indulgence should not be at the expense of artha.

Artha is achieving worldly success for oneself and family. This would include studying hard in our adolescence, working hard in one’s occupation in our youth, making one’s business profitable, bringing fame and stature to one’s family, and so on. These were not considered self-centred acts. After all, an educated, hardworking person or a successful businessman is an asset to society. But the pursuit of artha should not be at the expense of dharma.

Dharma is the natural balance that brings justice, harmony, contentment and sustainability to the world – not merely to its human inhabitants but also its animals, plants and the environment. So this would include promoting social justice, peace and harmony, gratitude and charity, and what westerners call human flourishing. But it also includes kindness to animals, protection of forests and trees that belong to all living beings, and making use of the environment in such a way that it doesn’t harm or compromise our fellow-creatures. But even this should not be at the expense of moksha.

Moksha relates to an existence in the higher, otherworldly or supramundane level; this is where all are considered equal and perfect. We may replace the brahmanical concept of moksha with nirvana, heaven, paradise, etc. if this makes us more comfortable.

Examples

As examples of kaama being subservient to artha, children should play, but not at the expense of their studies; a man could take alcohol, but not at the expense of his health, his family’s welfare or worldy advance. Sarvepillai Radhakrishnan defended contraception on a similar basis: it is alright for a married couple to use contraception to limit family size so that the family’s worldly prosperity or artha is safeguarded while kaama is indulged in, but it is not alright for a couple out of wedlock to use contraception to indulge in kaama and compromise the sanctity of the family.

Similarly, artha should be subservient to dharma. A businessman may make a profit, but not give bribes to do so; a man may fell trees for a living, but not denude a forest for a bigger profit; a scientist may do research, but not unethically; an academic may achieve fame, but not through plagiarism.

Dharma, in turn, should be subservient to moksha. One may uphold the law or other mundane frameworks, but not at the expense of our supramundane goals. There is a story of a hermit who refused to tell a lie (because he upheld the dharma of truthfulness) to a violent burglar, which facilitated the murder of some innocent civilians (thus compromising moksha); as a consequence, the hermit went to hell, not heaven, in spite of having been truthful.

East and West

With this model, moving from a competitive culture to a participatory or collaborative culture is not so earth-shattering. It is a painless amalgam of the atomistic element of society (the individual) and the collective fold (the society), where neither is promoted at the expense of the other. Secular humanists can ignore the ‘cosmic’ nature of the supramundane component in it – the rest ought to be quite appealing even for them.

But let me also say that I do not condone some other tenets of Indian philosophy, such as the caste system; but our disdain for these should not prevent us from seeing this model on its own merits. (And please don’t mix up ancient Indian philosophy with India’s current political ‘philosophy’!) Nor do I claim to be an expert on Indian philosophy; indeed, I would be very happy if an expert would correct my mistakes or clarify and add more light to what I have said. My understanding of it is certainly elementary at best.

We can see how restricted and tunnel-visioned the western societal goal is. Initially it had been highly ethnocentric, focused on white males. In more recent times one may say that it has become more inclusive, with concepts like human rights (but that is another story). But even this is anthropocentric. The need to further broaden out and take the environment too into this equation, with concepts such as James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, is only now receiving attention there (and perhaps a little too late too). Ancient Indian philosophy has ‘been there, done that’ – over three millennia ago!

It is the dissociation between these levels, enabled by the western reductionist approach and spread via its educational and neocolonial structures, that is at the heart of our current global mess. Today, we can see its harm. Children and even their parents indulge in digital addiction and lose their way in life (kaama overriding artha). Individuals profit or advance their careers at the expense of social institutions and hallowed traditions (artha overriding dharma). The law is upheld at the expense of justice (dharma overriding moksha). The Nazi human experiments that were highlighted in the Nuremberg trial – the ‘highpoint’ of western civilisation’s Enlightenment – would not have taken place if not for this dissociation. The very concept of the banality of evil arose from it.

The West has been compelled to introduce endless additional frameworks (such as conflicts of interest, accountability, volunteerism, ethics, professionalism) on top of its reductionist model, in order to close-off the unforeseen interstices that has manifested and the numerous loopholes that it has inadvertently given rise to.

Our blindness

In contrast, a simple yet all-encompassing model, such as what ancient Indian philosophy promoted, could guide people more easily and elegantly in their day-to-day lives. Unfortunately, our vice-like colonial educational structures and insidious neocolonial economic and political doctrines (including human rights!) continue to blind us. Perhaps we are waiting for a western philosopher to discover more of ancient Indian philosophy, re-pack it in western form, and deliver it as ‘latest advances’ or ‘updates’ on our ‘knowledge’, at a ‘prestigious’ international conference held in a western capital – like how our intelligentsia are now ‘discovering’ the value of meditation in mindfulness, or compassion in care ethics. It would indeed be wonderful if we could take the ideas of intellectuals like Susantha Hewa more seriously.