Reconceptualizing the Sciences and the Humanities E-Book

S.C. Malik

• Herausgeber: D.K. Printworld
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 510

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

This book by an anthropologist looks at recent developments in the sciences and the humanities taking into account many disciplines. The integral approach suggests radical departures by presenting alternate paradigms to the consumeristic paradigm which governs humankind today. This reconceptualizing through a rethinking is the only way a shift in lifestyles can be brought about if we wish to avoid the disasters which are upon us in terms of the oftstated ecological, socio-economic, psychological and spiritual crises. The implications of science in the new age are crucial for the growth and relevance of those disciplines which study the human phenomenon. By and large, in these academic disciplines general concepts have neglected the role of Consciousness which is a must in any integral approach.
Each chapter is governed by this overall context, as it is exemplified in the different topics dealt with from the viewpoint of many disciplines. The argument is not a linear sequential one, and in this sense each chapter is self-contained especially because the basic premise is that it is both the observer and the observed which have to be thoroughly understood at the particular and the universal levels. Science itself is moving into metaphysics, converging well into mystical insights and ancient speculative thought. The various themes of the book are: Civilization Studies and Knowledge: A Holistic Approach; Rock Art: A Creative Act; Man in Nature: An Integral Universe; A Question of Consciousness; Science and Consciousness; Violence and Non-Violence: A Binary System; and Integral Listening as Communication.

Leseprobe

Reconceptualizing

the Sciences and the Humanities

Reconceptualizing

the Sciences and the Humanities

— An Integral Approach —

S.C. Malik

Cataloging in Publication Data — DK

[Courtesy: D.K. Agencies (P) Ltd. <[email protected]>]

Malik, S. C. (Subhash Chandra), 1932- author.

Reconceptualizing the sciences and the humanities : an

integral approach / S.C. Malik. – Second revised edition.

pages cm

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 9788124611043

1. Science and civilization. 2. Civilization, Modern –

Philosophy. 3. Science – Philosophy. I. Title.

LCC CB478.M35 2021 | DDC 303.483 23

© S.C. Malik

First published in India in 1995

Second revised edition published in 2021

ISBN: 978-81-246-1104-3 (Hardbound)

ISBN: 978-81-246-1188-3 (E-Book)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior written permission of both the copyright owner, indicated above, and the publisher.

Printed and published by:

D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd.

Regd. Office : “Vedaśrī”, F-395, Sudarshan Park

ESI Hospital Metro Station, New Delhi - 110015

Phones : [phone], 2546 6019

e-mail : [email protected]

Web : www.dkprintworld.com

For

Aditya, Ruksher, Sushant, Renuka,

Ambika, Alaiqa and Aarya

Contents

Acknowledgements

1. Prologue

2. Civilizational Studies and Knowledge :A Holistic Approach

2.1 Civilizational Studies: Brief Background

2.1.1 Evolutionist and Progress Assumptions

2.1.2 Organic View Points

2.1.3 Non-Evolutionist Definitions

2.1.4 Levels of Integration

2.1.5 Literate Civilizational Studies

2.2 History of Anthropological Studies

2.3 Brief Background of Indian Studies

2.3.1 Historical Studies

2.3.2 Archaeological Studies

2.4 Indian Civilization: Structure and Dynamics

2.5 Modern Civilization: A Crisis of Fragmentation

2.6. Cognition – How Do We Know What We Know?

2.7 Space, Time and Knowledge

2.7.1 Space

2.7.2 Time

2.7.3 Knowledge

2.7.4 Space, Time and Knowledge Interrelated

2.7.5 Notions about the Mind

2.7.6 The Concept of Time in the Study of the Past

2.7.6.1 General Notions

2.7.6.2 A Study of the Past

2.8 Psychological Aspects of Cultural Symbols

2.9 Some Examples

2.9.1. The Village Context

2.9.2 Indian View of Civilization

2.9.3. The Awareness Context of Sanskrit

2.10. The Role of Intellectuals and Tradition

2.11 The Ethnographic Context

2.11.1 An Indian Example

2.11.2 Summing up of this section

3. Rock Art: A Universal Creative Act

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Rock Art qua Art

3.3 The Indian Example

3.4 Summary

4. Man in Nature: An Integral Universe

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Wholeness

4.3 From the Inorganic to the Organic

4.4 Organic Evolution

4.5 Biosphere, Organism and Environment

4.6 Beyond Duality

4.7 Self-Reflection and Self-Transcendence

4.8 Nature of Science and Wholeness

4.9 Conclusion: Context of All Contexts

5. A Question of Consciousness

6. Science and Consciousness

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 The Universe

6.1.2 Man

6.1.3 Knowledge-Truth

6.2 Physical Whole

6.3 Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness

6.4 Observation and Perception

6.5 Mentality and Sentience

6.6 Attention, Consciousness and Cognition

6.7 On Complementarity

6.8 Physics and Biology

6.9 Mysticism and Science

6.10 Summary

7. Violence–Non-violence: A Binary System

8. Integral Listening as Communication

8.1. Introduction

8.2 Language and Communication

8.3 Speaking and Listening

8.4 Non-listening

8.5 Language, Science and Power

8.6 Language, Culture and Communication

8.7 Monologue and Dialogue

8.8 Knowledge: Importance of Oral Traditions

8.9 Communion and Listening

8.10 Evolution and Listening

8.11 Listening: Humanities and Sciences

8.12 Listening and Development

8.13 Conclusion

9. Epilogue

Bibliography

Index

Acknowledgements

This book is the result of the work carried out during my tenure of 1988-94 as a University Grants Commisson (UGC) Professorial Research Scientist in Anthropology, affiliated to the Centre for Contemporary Studies, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML), New Delhi. My thanks are due to the UGC and to Prof. Ravinder Kumar, Director, NMML, for providing various facilities and for undertaking the publication of this book.

My gratefulness to Dr Kapila Vatsyayan and Dr B.N. Saraswati of the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, New Delhi, for inviting me to some of their seminars to present papers and the stimulating discussions which followed. Some of the chapters in this book are based on these papers.

For supporting me in many ways my thanks are also due to Usha, Keshav, Aditya and especially Anjali.

S.C. Malik

September, 1995

New Delhi

1

Prologue

A human being is a part of this whole, called by us “Universe”, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest – a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to apportion for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

– Albert Einstein

For some time after the Second World War, humankind basked in a great deal of assurance, for the practical dimensions of the notion of “progress” on a global scale equated with high technology. That confidence is missing today, for progress has led also to unprecedented inhumanities everywhere. The reason for this change is that applied science and technology continue to be governed by an intellectual comprehension of the material world as being composed of separate objects or particles. It is evident that humankind is in the throes of a deep crisis not only externally but psychologically. The predicament of the modern world lies in the many unexamined assumptions that continue to govern its way of life. These issues will be taken up later. There are, however, several others in the social and cultural life of twentieth-century civilization that are uppermost in one’s mind. They are:

i. The issue of humanity’s survival, in the face of the threat of nuclear, ecological, population and other disasters that face the entire planet.

ii. Reassessing notions of tradition, development, modernity and postmodernity; the values inherent in these words hav­ing arisen due to the impact of science and technology.

iii. The need to ameliorate the substandard existence of fel­low human beings, since the values of egalitarianism, so­cial justice and so on have widespread acceptance – and hence cannot be ignored.

iv. The specific problem of Indian cultural variation, its sociocultural and psychic maintenance – problems which are perhaps common to most of the developing world.

The intent of this Prologue is to highlight the areas under discussion rather than take them up in any detail. This is done in the subsequent chapters. The stress here is on the fact that cultural transformation may become possible not in any reviv­alistic sense but within the context of the growth of contempo­rary scientific knowledge which has drastically altered the philo­sophical assumptions that governed it for the last three or more centuries. Just as earlier the approach to the study of human behaviour was an offshoot of developments in science, the new vision of scientific knowledge needs to be taken into account in the study of human and social sciences. Clearly, the New Age science is converging towards certain perennial philosophical wisdom.

The old paradigms and the consequent biases, however, continue to dominate the world. For example, what is consid­ered universal today usually implies an overarching Western world view – howsoever one defines it; and in the name of universalism all other categories have to be subsumed within it. In this one may include the idea of linear time, progress towards a certain state and so on. These approaches are not, however, open-ended systems, and are less flexible compared, for example, with those world views in cultures which see evolu­tionary developments in terms of cosmic, holistic cycles wherein human events, including catastrophes, are encom­passed within a universal context.

Modern science and technology – Scientific Revolution – ­emerged within a specific historical–philosophical climate of Western Europe during the sixteenth-seventeenth centuries. It is worth our while to recapitulate certain of these philosophical presuppositions that are essentially Western, which dominate contemporary times in general. The background against which science arose, historically, is as follows:

The tensions between the Church and science in the Western culture around the seventeenth century formed the basis of the new ontological and epistemological assumptions that un­derlie modern science. By the eighteenth century it had adopted an ontological assumption of separateness: observer from the observed, man from nature, mind from matter, science from religion, fundamental particles differing from each other, a me­chanical differentiation of the various parts of an organism, specialization within scientific disciplines; and, finally, the psy­chological fallout – competition among scientists. In short, hu­mankind could pursue its objectives with no need to take the earth and its creatures into account, exclusively for its own benefit. Many of these reductionist postulates, which social sci­ences and humanities borrowed wholesale, led to the ethos of competition. The emphasis was on the localization of causes, to the exclusion of action at a distance, since the sole epistemo­logical assumption was one of empirical evidence, i.e. data aris­ing from our physical senses. By the middle of the last century these two metaphysical assumptions, of separateness and empiricism, became intrinsic to science.

Much of this is well known. It is also known that the ethos and postulates of Western science differ radically from presuppositions available in non-Western traditions. Within the Western milieu itself, many a poet and mystic has felt at odds with the cultural implications of modern science and technology. The recent advances in science also are beyond these early assumptions, especially in physics. Beyond that, however, there has been no serious challenge to these assumptions. Thus unchal­lenged, their hegemony has widely spread like a surgical trans­plant, even to India, subverting all that lies deep in the indig­enous and is inherent to Indian traditions.

At the root of modern science is the notion of the earth as a complex system within which organisms interact and undergo geophysical and chemical processes, all in a predictable manner. This notion is the deep undercurrent of all Western and westernized cultures. It permeates the whole spectrum, beginning with elementary textbooks. The interrelatedness is entirely in terms of a mechanical interpretation, a one-to-one cause–effect relationship. For instance, earthquakes have geophysical causes; this we deduce since we know that the earth is made up of inert matter, explainable locally and regionally. It does not call for an explanation in any global systemic terms. Nor does it entertain the notion of an independent variable – say a god in heaven.

A consequence of the belief that the earth is made up of inert components has been the passive exploitation of the resources. Contrast this with the attitude of the Navajo, who treat the earth as mother and as sacred. They would consider coal mining analogous to digging into a mother’s body – a heinous crime; or other non-Western civilizational groups who apologize to the tree before cutting it. Within the boundaries of their world views, both – the Eastern and the Western – are equally com­pelling truths. At the same time, long-term sustainable develop­ment cannot but be based on the holistic view; for the exploi­tation of maximum resources for development and progress is a short-sighted approach even in historical-evolutionary terms.

Clearly, no longer can one describe earth and life in terms of mere laws of physics and chemistry that life just happened on earth by chance. The shifting world views within the Western tradition are reflected not only in the developments in physics, chemistry and biology but also in the Gaia hypothesis – the world view, that is both holistic and multicentred, and is con­gruent with many Eastern world views, that developed from within the scientific tradition of the West, in the framework of evolutionary biology (Lovelock 1979, 1988). If such convergences between Eastern world views and the new developments in Western science are possible, these approaches become crucial for the survival of humankind, provided that the idea of inter­relatedness within the framework of Consciousness is taken seriously.

All over the world the prevailing world view of modern man in terms of humanistic psychology contrasts with the traditional world views; i.e. nature is unfriendly, confrontational and there­fore the need for control. The consequent feeling of alienation and separation in turn gives rise to the necessity to provide orderliness, protection and predictability for members of that civilizational group through structure, property rights, laws, en­forcement agencies, a central hierarchy of authority and so on. The transformational world view, which the new science and ancient insights suggest, is of a friendly universe, to be accepted, experienced and celebrated. Space and time are relative – infinitesimally small units or infinitesimally large. Nature is an evolving ecosystem of which you and me, the human spe­cies, are a part. In enhancing nature we enhance ourselves. Life is a matter of contributing, through myself and others, to the universe. The purpose of human society is to maximize the service of its members to other human beings and to themselves. This is possible only when every human being realizes the full potential of body, mind and spirit. It requires an environment that supports and encourages self-actualization and self-responsibility. In this world view, each being is both unique – par­ticular and universal at the same time, one with humanity, nature, the planet and the cosmic order. This quest for a unified field – scientific or otherwise – begins with one’s self, with personal yearning. It is with this creative urge that throughout history, in every endeavour, humankind has searched for connections, for ways to make a harmonious whole out of parts.

This exploration of integrative answers cannot escape conflict since the social system one lives in is based on separation, fragmentation and dualities. Most humanities, and even science in many parts of the world, with their stress on technology and scientism founded on notions and generalizations of the nine­teenth century, feel threatened by such a fundamental chal­lenge. Not all of the current state of science perhaps accepts the notion of an ocean of intelligence, a unified energy field, an attributeless, nameless and formless energy, Universal Consciousness.

The time has come to speak of alternate blueprints – world views – which believe in living within open-ended systems, as human beings and not merely as good scholars. For example, for molecular biologists to think that the entire nature of life may be comprehended in terms of molecular biology, is to think mechanistically that this is what science is about and that is all that matters (Mayr 1991). Often, the open-mindedness of sci­ence is limited within established ideas or paradigms. (One might say the same about many religions – theologies – which operate within closed systems or social scientists who think that the framework or content one examinies is the whole thing itself). Although the rational approach has been very useful in many productive – material – ways, it has seriously ignored, at its own peril, psychological areas especially at the level of consciousness. Even today this area of knowledge is considered a fruitless activity, a waste of time, fit only for non-academic religious persons. In the work of the scientist, in the act of creativity, while intuition is recognized, it is little understood. But is it not part of the process of knowledge within the crucial aspect of knowing one’s self before knowing the universe? The present narrow vision of science and its extreme specialization – ­while at the same time claiming open-endedness – have resulted in the neurotic state of humanity at large. This is exemplified amply by the destructive consequences that are very much upon us.

The philosophy of science has largely rested on empirical methodology; it involves formulating a hypothesis, then subjecting it to experimental procedures via carefully collected data that verify or falsify it. The tentative conclusions thus drawn may then form a theoretical base for new discoveries or perhaps in formulating mathematical equations that have the force of law. Science is thus concerned both with concrete details and ab­stract reasoning, between inductive and deductive ways. Its structure is very sophisticated indeed, but its vision of reality will remain narrow unless the subject of study at hand is studied for itself and goes beyond itself. Unless this is so, science loses meaning and becomes dogmatic and destructive in the long run. This is the fate of science and technology when these turn into scientism and empiricism. Scientific details acquire meaning only when they glow with another, meta-scientific, re­ality. The collective information from sense data is not a mere collection, since it depicts, not describes, reality within symbolic structures. This is not unlike music, art and poetry which do not represent a single reality but the multifaceted grandeur and beauty of the universe which may be experienced at multiple levels. Among scientists, it is only a handful, like Einstein and Heisenberg, who have acknowledged these ideas publicly. Feel­ing and experiencing this oneness is, if it must be defined, mysticism. Science, originating from philosophical searches, also arises from the idea of wonder and awe; this is why there are clearly both ethical and aesthetic sides to it. Perhaps, sci­ence after all is trying to explain the mystery of existence, of being, while mysticism experiences it; one is limited, the other unbounded. Nevertheless, both seek unity, a unified field of existence which forms the link, the substratum. What is this, and how is it tied to the existence of the scientist-scholar itself? It is possible that now one is speaking of a realm that is beyond language, schema-symbols too feeble to translate that ineffable domain of Silence. It is knowable, communicable nonetheless even if whatever one says about it, it becomes an untruth. As in physics, there can only be approximations of the statements one makes.

The point of the above discussion is to highlight certain new directions of holistic science, of oneness – Consciousness – as the new foundations and metaphysics, which then allow whole new vistas to open before us. Many anomalies, paranormal phenomena, may begin to fit into this framework, that does not insist on fitting everything into a reductionistic science; or con­clude that we humans are here solely through random causes, in a meaningless universe; or that our Consciousness is merely the chemical and physical processes of the brain, an epiphenomenon.

Few scientists are prepared to question the philosophical issues underlying their work; that they are part of the underlying definition of science – say the objectivist, positivist, determinist and reductionist assumptions of logical empiricism. These have served science and technological development all right. But when the social scientists have aped these approaches the results have been disastrous.

Most scientists would assert that science has moved away from all this for over half a century. But it is not clear, towards what; and consciousness has not come into the picture yet even though a host of paradoxes is facing science today, namely:

1. The fundamental nature of things does not appear to be convergent. As more and more of fundamental particles are appearing, reductionism is in fact pointing to a whole­ness; in their separation these are connected.

2. The fundamental organizing force in living systems, from the largest to the smallest, is unexplained by physical principles (homeostasis, intricate flower patterns, butterfly wings, etc.; healing, regeneration, ontogenesis, etc.).

3. The problem of action at a distance, or nonlocal causality, appearing in the far reaches of quantum physics; mean­ingful coincidences or connections, or Jungian synchronicity – called paranormal, telepathic, clairvoyant communication; a host of others.

4. The knowledge of the universe is incomplete since there is no place in science for the consciousness of the ob­server, as if he is not in it, i.e. the notion of free will, volition and other characteristics of consciousness. The idea of going from the physiochemical to consciousness is not working; it is the movement from the higher, subtle, to the lower or gross which may take many of these as­pects into account.

5. The notion of the self; the concept is not clear and not taken into account even though it is involved in the act of observation.

6. What are the altered states of consciousness, which mystics and others know of? These, sought after by one and all – in aesthetic experience and so on – are indicated in ordinary mundane lives also. If atom splitting causes the release of unforeseen energy, the splitting of the ego releases another dimension of consciousness little known in everyday ‘normal’ living.

Given these puzzles, researchers are moving into new areas to understand matter and consciousness, unthinkable a couple of decades ago. It requires a restructuring of the approach towards a oneness picture, a holistic science as some would like to call it. This is to say, one experiences the world from inside as Consciousness, which is the whole also since the outside expe­rienced by the senses is its external manifestation. In this con­text evolution is the manifestation of Consciousness, not just a single track of separate evolution from times immemorial. Con­sciousness thus becomes an agency, in the relevant data which we desire to create for our images and pictures of reality.

******

As hinted above, recent developments in physics and science in general (for example the complementarity principle), especially the epistemological basis of quantum mechanics, throw a new light on the notion of scientific explanation itself. These new trends have an important bearing on the current cultural and spiritual crisis facing humankind. It is also known that these developments have a striking resemblance to certain Upaniṣadic sayings or even the Śūnyavāda of Buddhism and so on.

The point here is not that it has all been said in ancient Indian philosophical systems. If it were, the reaction of the reader may be, as it was with the earlier book (Malik 1989a), that it is yet another statement critical of the Cartesian–Newtonian approach, but will all this make a difference to those who are living in the urban areas, and even those to whom we attribute the so-called holistic world view, such as in India? The issue is that it is for the intellectuals to be aware of the new trends since it is the haves who control resources and decide policies. But this minority continues to be swayed by the old approaches, especially those disciplines that deal with human behaviour at many levels. It is worth remembering that even in scientific research there exist prevailing fashions and trends governed by the sociocultural set-up within which lie the collectivity and the individual function.

As in any area of life, a researcher or a teacher, whether in science – social science – humanities, becomes an “expert” once he has crossed thirty years of age. But the problem with being an expert – and one can be an expert if only there is social support and approval of the agreement within the community – scientific or otherwise – is that the current style of one’s discipline becomes dominant. Consequently, experts be­come uneasy and fearful of asking questions which clash with prevailing accepted theories and standpoints, even though they may tend to agree in principle that raising such issues is also of extreme significance in any scientific enquiry. An expert, there­fore, tends to live off the work done in earlier days which makes him an authority; and to maintain the status position within the discipline in terms of the so-called expertise. The status will be threatened if someone comes along and starts to question cer­tain fundamental assumptions, albeit ideally this ought not to be the case. But this way of thinking is built into the social system based on a hierarchically arranged structure, at home or outside in the profession.

The sciences are equally value-laden by notions other than those which govern their basic propositions of the “search for truth”. How much true of this must be those who claim to study human societies like sociologists, psychologists and anthropologists! And also of religious studies, which is the search for the truth in the inner movement. But institutionally religion is also governed by the establishment, the prevailing sociocultural environment. This is not to say that the approval or agreement with the community is not important. But when this factor becomes dominant at the expense of free enquiry – the search for truth – it becomes unacceptable. It is easily forgotten that it is the search and learning itself which is the goal; not any end product or a final statement. Such forgetfulness is danger­ous for the society at large, not for scientists alone. The endeavour for truth is itself a value, embodying a creative mind, nature or being; it reflects not only that learning is part of the process of biological well-being, but that in the dynamic uni­verse of perpetual motion, a movement from one state to another in a sense is a totality of NOWs, whichever way it may be defined. This enquiry and search is not to be subsumed in terms of a linear-time, linear-mind framework and not even in the liberal cyclical time-framework – the expectation that the search will lead one, in time, to the truth when it will all be revealed once and for all!

This is how it is assumed in the social set-up by every gen­eration that the experts have finally arrived. An expert is one who either hangs on to the discovery or whatever, and tries to repeat it; hoping thereby to maintain an equilibrium in a straight line, status quo-wise, so to speak. One does so in normal life too, when one speaks of any experience which one wants repeated and continued. In scientific explanation also one tends to feel as if the answer has been reached; and the “I know” state of mind holds sway with social approval, whereby it assumes a psychological dimension of the personal self. This process is, however, seldom seen clearly since it is governed by one’s sociocultural behaviour and response; one is conditioned by a stimulus–response, reaction–reaction pattern – erroneously considered to be action.

At the moment of discovery, the ego, the personality which is made by societal needs of approval and attention, feels satisfied and elated. But after that moment has gone, the ego takes over and subjectivity tries to be objective, impartial, to attain a detached scientific-observer state. In the process of discovery, there is no ego, just as in any experiencing or a creative moment like an aesthetic one. (This is true no matter how it is labelled in mathematics, science, or religion and art, music and so on, where the discovery and the experience are simultaneous.) But the subsequent operation of putting the experience into words, to communicate it even to one’s self, as a manifest expression of that experience in terms of any language or image or symbol, is entrapped in the sociocultural milieu. Even more is this true where it is the psychological entity of the “me” which is seeking explanations or giving a commentary on the experience of discovery (say of eureka); all this movement is of time, thought, the me and the ego, whichever pronoun one may use. The continuous one process is thus split up, fragmented, since lan­guage and symbols inherently as abstractions must do so.

Creation implies change, movement, process. Even in na­ture there is adaptability and dynamism which biologists com­monly speak of today; it is not static as a finished product. There is constant movement, a rhythm which is dynamic. This dynamism is inherent; this flux or the specific order or chaos is in science, in fact, a search for a new order of level of stability. Similar is the case with the inner state of the mind, which re­quires a continuous process of search and learning. There is only the travel, and no destination to reach in the sense of linear time.

Of the constant experimentation in nature, man is an intrinsic part. He has the inherent need to be creative, to be new moment to moment; to feel fresh in all ways. Thought tends to make this creativity in man linear, inhibiting the experiential moments of freshness. This problem, which indeed imperils mankind, has been ignored in the modern world. The human organism cannot do without creativity; but this current stress on individualism thwarts, leading to the contemporary wide­spread feeling of alienation and neurosis. Every child is born with this creativity; but in the growth process the conditioning of socialization kills the innocence of enjoying the here and now, of the ability to say “I do not know”. The child explores the universe in the freshness of a first-time experience, in constant wonder and delight. But the grown-up is always emphasizing the “I know” psychological state. Thus while one part of the organism wants to be in touch with this creativity of beingness, the lesser me, the lazy part wants repetition as a subjectivity of the linear-time framework within the “one day” philosophy of “arriving”. The same paradigm governs the search for truth, which one will arrive at one day, like the peace and harmony one has heard being stated for millennia. The claims of being “openminded”and allowing for a multiplicity opinions and questions therefore is mere rhetoric.

This saying one thing and doing another is the split-brain symptom of the current crisis. The package singularity of the “one day” implies that the ego, as the commentator, believes, not lives, in knowing and searching, in sincerity, love and action – ­all of which it shall achieve soon like the donkey chasing after the carrot dangling before it. Then, it says, all strife will be overand peace will reign supreme.

Despite the turmoil it engenders in the brain, this pretence is really a lazy way out and putting the wrong foot first, especially as one is not even aware of this doublespeak. Obviously, not everything will be all right, not every goal will be reached. In saying what it ought to be like (whatever the context be of this “it”), one has reached certain conclusions – even if relative – one is posing to be an expert. But this conclusion (to conclude) only projects the known past into the future, which therefore is the same as the past. The past is thus perpetuated, more often as an unconscious sociocultural conditioning. But this assertion itself has it not been made over and over again? Of course it has. After all, the same framework which subsumes even this statement within its model of the linear-time framework, of chasing a mirage even if it be of eliminating itself. The only alternative to this split between perception and action is simply to not say what one intends not to do; at least lessen the doublethink moments in which one is so caught up. The unity of the timeless and time-bound must be seen not as any concept but as an awareness of waking up to what is. In that flash of eternity, at any time that we want it consciously, the portals open up to give us a glimpse of the vastness available to us. The game of splitting reality is then over. This change of perception itself is action.

“The search for truth.” In this statement, what is crucial is the search part, and not the finding of “truth”, as some object discovered. The search in the present – NOW – is the important dimension. There are milestones on the road but no end in sight, no ultimate destination. Whatever destination one sets is an arbitrary one, created for the game. Milestones, of course, are there but not fit for worship. They are merely indicators on the way and not signs of having arrived. In the metaphor of being, there is no arriving anywhere, as there is no end in fact. Thought and time in the linear mind believes in this movement towards a set goal – becoming – of going from here to there physically and psychologically. It is true that in the relative sense, for the time being, one creates goals and ends through playing various roles, but it is a game being played within the larger game. To see this game of one’s self and of the universe without trying to vanish it, is to awaken from the somnambulism of the split-brain fragmentation confronting humankind.

For the linear mind, which is the me – ego – the question will arise: is this not another goal, to move beyond the duality by evolving yet another high-sounding philosophy of detachment, of being an observer, and suggesting that one ought to be some kind of yogī? And if one agrees with all this, how does one achieve this state of awakening; what are the methods, and how, when, where does one know of it, etc.? The split, linear mind, which asks these questions, has to realize its limitation. If there is any such state to be achieved, it is beyond the intellect. The awakening is of a larger context that sees the duality as a manifestation, a dialogue, an indicator of the nondual. The lin­ear dual aspect must be seen to be the shadow of the non-dual. It is as one sees one’s own body’s shadow and thereby knows of the existence of the body which one cannot otherwise per­ceive physically as a whole as one sees another – the other being also a reflection of one’s self in another sense.

The shadow must realize that it cannot possibly become the substance, which it is struggling to become in its unconscious conditioning of māyā, within which each of us is caught over and over, in this and in other lives. The shadow perpetu­ates the illusion by asking questions of how, when and where along with why; all this seeking – which appears very signifi­cant – creates the illusion of hard work, of a destination to be reached and taking one’s self very seriously. This is the nature of the finite self; these several selves seek unity with false no­tions which only accentuate and reinforce the earlier states and conclusions of the finite self. The psychological process is the same as that of an expert who asserts his authority, whether within the dialogue that most of the time is running in his head or outside. This commentary on the actual and the experiential acts as a thought “censor” in the context of a socially conditioned personality, which has become hardened with years, at the cost of the given genetic and mental potentialities – saṁskāras.

In functioning as the authority that is constantly attempting to dominate both within and without, the personality, this expert, is basically lazy. Also, being an incomplete structure, it is inevitably dissatisfied. It is all the time wanting and desiring to have more functions without actually completing any. At the same time, it deludes itself on being complete. The personality is like a bucket with a hole trying to measure the ocean. All these games are basic to its existence, even its own denial, since all this splitting and duality perpetuates its self and is not merely seen as a manifestation of the ONE. The split is from here to there, from the self to the other, of saying one thing and doing another, and separating perception from action. How else would it perpetuate itself?

It is this primary nature of the “ego” that is reflected in the social world, giving experts meant “naturally” to govern, to “tell” others what to do in science, religion, politics, economics, the arts and so on. The phenomenon has continued in tandem with claims of bringing into existence, for the last two thousand years, open-mindedness and equality not only between humans but also between human life and non-human life. The “me” is framed within the dominant and subordinate paradigms, hierarchy, and so on. Therefore, the entire debate hinges on knowing the “I”, me or the ego, this unit, this subjectivity; what is it? It is not a question of me becoming the we or the universe. For the latter itself is an extension of the ego which subsumes the so-called altruistic role. In the search for truth, it is almost inevitably forgotten that it is the seeker that is sought, like the person forgetting to count himself when enumerating the persons in his group.

May be this has been said before, and often enough. But it does not imply that the idea of knowing the self or self-knowledge also becomes another abstraction, an idea that has to be pursued intensely, another “becoming” a goal. This “objective” is once again subsumed by thought within the same linear frame­work which the ego takes over for its operations. In another sense, the problem is not that there is nothing new in this state­ment; because in this abstract sense there is nothing new under the sun – everything is as old as breathing, eating, sex and so on. But at the existential–experiential level everything is always new and unique, and that is the charm of it all. At every moment one must breathe afresh, the cells must renew themselves if one is to stay alive. This dynamic nature is part of the universe, where a particle at the same time becomes a wave in terms of the context. The energy does not function in a limited split manner, unlike human thought which functions within the bi­nary confrontational dualities. All that needs to be done is to drop the glasses or for the split mind to clear up by simply being aware of the split, without having to do anything about it. That is to say, one needs to realize the limited role which the “who I think I am” plays, and instead be aware – be with it – ­of “who I am”. Most of the modern man follows the former, whereas one’s Beingness lies in the latter.

This split-level paradigm operates all the time, since this paradigm itself becomes who one is, at all of the inner and outer existences. Immediately a question is asked then what is one to do? This question itself is inappropriate and misleading even though the intention may sound very pious. It is a trap which once again leads one into the linear framework.

The above intellectual statements are meant as indicators for one to notice – the finger that points to the moon is not to be mistaken for the moon – to observe choicelessly. It is this witnessing that may create a sense of authenticity, sincerity and creativity; whether one is designated as a scientist, politician or a religious person. The awareness, the awakening itself is the action – perception itself is the action. When the split-eyeglasses are removed, metaphorically speaking, everything becomes clear and transparent. This once again is nothing to be reached for, because the first step is the last step, and an important one albeit not because one will know what the next step will be. At the operational level, amazing possibilities open up for one since the neurotic split is dropped. The impact is tremendous as the old paradigm loses its hold. Now, to put it simply, everything, you and me, is okay. One is here and now, for the sake of the search, for joy, in whatever one is doing or not doing. Miracles may begin to happen.

In this light, in general for the humanities and the sciences, and especially those who claim to study the whole man, even in the context of the holistic approach of Indian tradition in general, research orientations will have to change their direction by 180°. The old split-brain approach is not only redundant but out of date as the disastrous consequences clearly show and do not lead to a true understanding of the nature of society and culture. Its incorrect generalizations, incorporated into de­cisionmaking for millions all around, have led to barbaric re­sults.

2

Civilizational Studies and Knowledge

A Holistic Approach

From the direction of falseness

I am closer to truth.

The search for holistic multidisciplinary approaches to the study of civilizations, especially the Indian one, is certainly not new. Most such research studies ultimately aim to produce an integral picture. Why then do these attempts seldom succeed in breaking away from the earlier fragmentary conceptual models/frameworks to evolve a holistic methodology, that goes beyond prescriptive statements, to exemplify the actual through the study of sociocultural phenomena? Could it be because the underlying assumptions of research endeavours are seldom questioned, such as the notion of “wholeness, excellence, understanding, knowledge, perception” and so on? Could it be that every new idea/image continues to be interpreted within the general sociocultural context within which each scholar func­tions? Is not the scholar constrained and dependent upon both the wider social context and the long historical evolution of the professional discipline? In short, is it not the perceptual, con­ceptual and metaphysical context within which each of us functions that gov erns research endeavours? To illustrate, the various studies of Indian civilization are framed within concepts which reflect the views of an urban-oriented colonial heritage closely linked to social, political and economic ideologies. Pure ob­jectivity may be a myth, but one can at least be consciously aware of one’s biases and prejudices. Such awareness may possibly allow for various correctives to be available from time to time. This level of detached self-consciousness might, for the time being, at least minimize one’s prejudices and value judgements, enabling one to invoke a more rigorous methodology than one would otherwise do.

Subjectivity, of course, will remain an integral part of one’s research. Since academic work arises out of the collective socio­psychological structure – and this means it is influenced by cultural values and is governed by social groups – it also has the power and potential to change social and cultural structures, in turn. In this way questioning fundamental assumptions be­comes both a source of radical change and, therefore, a threat to the existing social order. It is well to remember in this context that it is the old unexamined assumptions that continue to govern “modern” times and have provided the ground from which all attempts – both individual and collective – to create a whole are made. All such good intentions are bound to miss their mark since the outdated paradigm continues to form the ground on which one stands. The error is in the first step itself – broken eyeglasses will always give a broken view of the universe, so to speak.

It is well known, for example, that attempts at cross-cultural lifestyle studies in anthropology arise from a concern for studying the broad human problems which face modern man – a concern with universal problems beyond narrow specialization and chauvinistic boundaries of any sort, including that of a nation. But is this possible unless scholars are able to transcend their own sociocultural conditioning by becoming conscious of the covert assumptions which govern both their personal boundaries and those of the discipline? This is the crucial first step for moving towards holistic studies, that is, it is necessary to raise questions about the way we know what we know – the source, origin of ideas and such other epistemological issues.

This chapter is an attempt to raise these various issues, asksome basic questions especially within the framework of the structure of knowledge, and the dynamics of Indian civilization. Some examples for alternative futures that are available within the tradition are highlighted. Perhaps, in this way one may move away from the fragmentary approach that has caused so much havoc and agony in the twentieth century, to a holistic one. But first let us briefly look at the history of the study of civilizations, especially the Indian one.

2.1 Civilizational Studies: Brief Background

Civilizations have been studied for many generations and answers to the questions raised have been given in many ways. For instance, under the immediate impact of Darwinism, human societies were classified in terms of the biological principle of natural selection. This resulted in a quest for locating and study­ing such non-European societies as would exemplify various “natural” stages in the history of societies; it also led to the inves­tigation of Greek, Egyptian and Chinese civilizations. For in­stance, the approaches of Gibbon, Spengler and Toynbee (1947) presumed that civilizations have a definite life course and death similar to that of an individual organism. In fact, this idea has its roots in the thirteenth century, and even earlier universal histories. In short, the history of such studies is a long one and we need not go into their details here. Some of the relevant conceptual assumptions of such studies may be summarized as follows:

2.1.1 Evolutionist and Progress Assumptions

These stress predominantly the technological criteria of material progress, as formulated by Lewis H. Morgan in 1877, Engels in 1884 and following in their footsteps Childe (1954) who, from archaeological and other evidences of ethnography, characterized civilization by the presence of cities, large monuments, agricultural surpluses, writing, etc.

2.1.2 Organic View Points

These consider civilizations in terms of life cycle, of youth, manhood, old age and death – especially as enunciated by Gibbon, Spengler and Toynbee, among others.

2.1.3 Non-Evolutionist Definitions

These include such viewpoints as the consideration of truth, beauty, adventure, art and peace as chief characteristics – ­qualities – of a civilized society. We may here also include views which characterize India by its spirituality or other moral judgements.

2.1.4 Levels of Integration

a. Sorokin (1962) and Cowell (1952) have viewed various cultural systems at high levels of integration in such fields as science, philosophy and art. Sorokin divides cultural systems into sensate, ideational and idealistic, depending upon the respective viewpoints of ultimate reality. But he does not consider a total civilization as integrated since for him subsystems, even clashing ones, alongside may be integrated.

b. Redfield (1956, 1961) considers civilization in terms of the integration of folk and urban cultures, and the interaction of high and low traditions.

c. Kroeber (1963a, b) views civilizations as a “superstyle” or a “way of life”. For example, in considering the climax or culmination of a civilization in terms of art and intellectual activities, he indicates two such periods for India; from the Upaniṣadic period to the development of Buddhist and other heretical religions around 500 bce, and the Gupta period (traditional golden period) from 400–600 ce. The delimitation of culture and civilization corre­sponds closely to periodization, and for him history is an end product of learning and of judgement by conscious choice, whereby we organize endless continuum of culture and past happenings.

2.1.5 Literate Civilizational Studies

In studying societies and cultures as a whole, either in terms of social and cultural integration or in some other form of ab­straction, it was thought that in literate civilizations, as contrasted with non-literate societies, there is a possibility of greater abstraction because of the presence of historical or philosophi­cal sources. Literate civilizations are those which accumulate a wealth of written documents of all sorts, having a rich intellec­tual tradition – religious, historical, legal, scientific and the like. The word civilization has been chosen because in contrast to society and culture, it implies an extra increment of scope and elaborations (Hsu 1969).

To illustrate, in summary, questions which may be asked for Indian civilization could be, by and large, as follows:

A. i. If a civilization is viewed as a system, in terms of levels of integration, is not a basic assumption of conflict equally valid for our analysis?

ii. What are the fundamental aspects of discontinuity and change in a system, and the most fruitful ones of analyzing them?

iii. What criteria do we use to identify and define cultural stages, phases, periods, beyond mere chronology? How do we work out a timescale to judge the rates of sociocultural and techno-economic changes?

B. i. Can one speak meaningfully of a finite number of pre­requisites for a civilization, and in their absence, of its decline and death?

ii. Are certain crucial sociocultural institutions more necessary for the maintenance of a system than others, and if so, what?

C. i. What are the units of our study, both for contemporary and historic times? The units may be ethnographic, historical (janapada), ecological, cultural or even a sampling of statistical units.

ii. How do different similar environments lead to similar dif­ferent technological and cultural levels? Has a detailed correlation of techno-economic levels to sociocultural levels been worked out?

iii. Do social and cultural spheres and values produce economic needs? Or, do needs, physiological or ideological, create the potential for sociocultural and technological changes? If, however, there are multiple interacting variables involved, how is this multivariate process to be identified and analysed?

iv. What multivariate models will explain the interrelation­ships of technology and economics to culture, or even the role of technology and economics in social systems? What models, and evidence, do we have for seeing land use, trade pattern, population density, social relations, prop­erty rights, etc.?

v. Is pre-industrial – traditional – society inherently conservative, especially the village one? If so, what is the context and empirical evidence for it? Supposing it is not, will we not need to look at historical evidence afresh? Are some variables more prone to change than others; technology, arts and crafts, economics, social life, or ideology?

D. i. Under what conditions and who in a sociocultural group migrates? Does migration always lead to replacement and no acculturation?

ii. When do ideas alone spread, or do ideas and trait-complexes diffuse together with techno-economics and subsistence levels?

iii. What is the role of convergent and parallel evolution in processes of diffusion and migration?

iv. When do cultures borrow, replace or adopt alien technology, culture, economic systems, ideology and so forth?

v. How do we see inner differentiation and change within a given cultural unit (boundary system), instead of invoking external cultural factors as a cause for change, i.e. do we not have to take certain inner compulsions as indigenous (local and regional) needs of a society?

2.2 History of Anthropological Studies

Beginning with the nineteenth century, theories were propounded in the West on society, which attempted to examine “society” like a biologist under a microscope, from outside. Thus, anthropology, until recently, mainly investigated out-of-the-way non-European “small” societies. It was thought that such micro-examination would enable one to understand the larger prob­lems of the whole as well as that of cultural evolution. In the subcontinent, Indians inherited the British system, which began with physical anthropology (racial types, blood groups, etc.) and descriptive cultural studies/ethnology, into recordings of the so-called institutional arrangements so that the sum total of these specific practices would typify these “cultures”. This disin­terested classificatory research was primarily an encyclopaedic account for the consumption of administrators, to acquaint the British with the people they were governing. Later, the impact of the American school was to influence Indian anthropologists, which studied not only isolated tribes, but also caste groups, village structure, urban communities, etc.

There were two other main reasons for such studies. It was expected that through such studies: (a) the non-industrial “tribal” societies would disclose the stages through which the advanced industrial society must have passed, and (b) one could identify motivations which kept these societies “stagnant” and replace­ment of which would take them forward along the lines fol­lowed by the advanced societies. A later derived reason was to assert the congenital character of backwardness and these soci­eties’ opposition to any effort at the introduction of modern institutions.

In the post-Independence era, there was a general dissatisfaction amongst Indian scholars with the application of western methodology to study non-white communities and scholars have been in search of grounding their quest in “Indianness”. At the same time, scholars have accepted the linear stratification (such as food-gatherers, hunters, cultivators, nomads, eco­nomically backward, literate and illiterate) as the basic premise from which to explore the functioning of a society.

Anthropologists have also felt that plural societies may be studied through elaborate techniques of field investigation in a manner similar to studying traditional small societies, i.e. one may arrive at a totality by aggregating or multiplying a single dimension. But this also gives a fragmented picture and has seldom provided a total picture of a society, culture or civilization. In other words, these attempts have often resulted in a patchwork of elements without any apparent overall pattern. There are, of course, those who argue that it is seldom possible to comprehend the totality, and that each culture or society, even civilization may be highlighted by basing its emphasis on one or the other of the following:

a. investigation of a single aspect, e.g. art, mythology;

b. examination of a single village or a community; and

c. a psychological approach, based on broad personality generalizations or on other underly­ing characteristics.

The first approach concerns itself with politics, art and literature and economics. The second group deals with what people of -a local community think and do, ignoring traditional literature. The third group emphasizes shared patterns between the written literature, fiction, myths, folk tales, sacred books and traditional philosophies; and the values, feelings and preoccupations of the common people as expressed through their activities, problems and utterances or national character studies (Hsu 1969).

In India, in the early years, anthropological research was closely interlinked to historical research. The main trends, in summary, until the end of the First World War were:

a. a humanist tradition which emphasized the relationships between textual study and static models of contemporary Indian society;

b. Indian society was seen as a collection of different entities the traditions of which could be classified and studied separately, such as of caste, rituals, village, arts and crafts;

c. economic study of villages with some interrelationship shown with social structure; and

d. tribal studies.

By the end of the Second World War, the entire orientation of anthropology, its methods, theories and even subject matter were transformed, through a conscious effort throughout the world. The beginnings of this transformation may be seen during the 1930s and 1940s, especially in the works of Rivers and Radcliffe-Brown (Dube 1971).

Beginning from 1906 until 1952, the bulk of anthropological research in India consisted of descriptive anthropology and speculative ethnology. There were, however, many exceptions to this trend. After 1952, conceptually and methodologically sound models as evolved by Redfield, Kroeber and Levi-Strauss were utilized. By 1955, attempts were made to rectify earlier views, through systematic fieldwork and empirical studies all over the country. No one now takes the basic social units of family, caste and village as structural or cultural isolates. Rather, they are seen as networks of various kinds, and even the caste system has been related to the great traditional structures, as represented in Dharmaśāstras and other historical texts. The structural–functional relationship of religion and politics to social structure, and of economics and language to social structure have also been examined. Social change as an organization of structural and cultural traditions, as well as the concept of social mobility in terms of social hierarchy, ritual purity, pollution, etc. have been accepted and made use of in various studies now. But many anthropologists continue to use equilibrium-adjust­ment models, considering these as adequate explanations of various processes; while others, since they see linear transfor­mations as not possible, use such concepts as universalization and parochilization (Marriott 1963). Nevertheless, emphasis on “conflict-tension” models, or the structuralist approach, in terms of function–dysfunction, is in relatively less use today (Mathur and Varma 1975).

Anthropologists have also realized that examination of such subsystems as village, caste, etc. is a necessity, since these may then be correlated into the wider setting of a civilization, i.e. microstudies are useful as points of reference against which different aspects of a “total”society and culture may be exam­ined. But historians have yet to investigate structural relation­ships of sub-societies and subcultures (subsystems), both spa­tially and temporally. These methodological standpoints may enable the sequence of facts and events, from historical to the modern, to be examined in a comparative manner by seeking out the repetitive social and cultural processes that have existed through time and space.

Thus, modern anthropology has gone beyond descriptive analysis to develop explicit techniques and systematic theories. Of course, it continues to use such descriptive accounts as are available in historical documents, evidence from archaeological fieldwork, ethnographic details and so on. This vast informa­tion today is analysed to explain processes and to focus atten­tion on various dimensions of research methodology and theo­retical problems.

2.3 Brief Background of Indian Studies

2.3.1 Historical Studies

Indian society has been studied by people and travellers for a long time, since at least the third century bce by the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine Jews and the Chinese, such as recorded in the accounts of Megasthenes. These accounts increased rapidly from 1000 ce onwards with the coming of the Arabs, Turks, Afghans and Persians. The accounts of Megasthenes, who had the advantage of observing Indian society directly, were mainly of urban political centres. Arab accounts also followed the clas­sical view of mentioning seven classes of Indian society. Roman accounts were mainly geographic in nature, while the later seventeenth century accounts tend to give the Mughal court version of political and commercial matters, such as by Al-­Biruni.

Eighteenth-century Europeans saw Indian society much the same as European society, i.e. living on agriculture, craft pro­duction on a large scale, legal systems based on written law, kinship systems, taxation based on regular assessment and so on. In short, a multiple cultural and religious system based on sacred texts, ritual specialists, scholars and so on (Singer and Cohn 1968; Cohn 1971; Malik 1971). With the British rule, began large scale land movements and land became marketable as a result of British revenue arrangements. As land was acquired, expanded and resettled, social and cultural mobility increased, obviously with changing economic and technological develop­ments. This differentiation historically between the pre-industrial, industrial and post-industrial periods needs to be borne in mind.

The British allowed the basic sociocultural fabric to stay, while they took over the top of this structure. The European view of Indian civilization was based on a theoretical textual model of the four varṇas, kinship and other social categories followed in the village. There were, however, different images and emphases laid on the study of this civilization. Three major traditions of study may be noted: (a) administrative; (b) oriental; and (c) missionary. All three felt the need to reform and modernize it in their own way. For example, William Jones and trained scholars wanted to maintain the status quo view of the stability of Indian society; the missionaries, particularly Baptists from the lower order of British society, committed themselves to reform both Indian and their own societies.

The orientalists had uncritically accepted the textual view of Indian society, which was considered to be timeless and static; the statements from the texts of the third century were as good for the eighteenth century. In this view, there was no regional variation so that no questions were asked about the relation­ships between prescriptive normative statements derived from the texts and the actual behaviour of individuals and groups. This stereotype, that every Hindu follows the textual rules, seems to continue to haunt not only the academic but also the lay man. The missionary view was at polar ends to the orientalist’s; it condemned Hindu society outright in order to destroy the social basis of Hinduism. Though, indirectly, it con­tributed a great deal to the initiation of empirical studies of Indian society, the missionary view firmly believed that Indian society had always been corrupt, degraded and filled with ab­surdities.

In all these efforts, the increase in empirical knowledge was linked to the collection of taxes, to support administration for military and commercial activities. There was, of course, an attempt to understand the theory and practice of land revenue and associated socio-philosophical notions, and anthropological observations such as interviews, population figures, social hierarchy in terms of caste entities and so on. But knowledge was collected not for India’s welfare, but to support the administration and collect land revenue for military and commercial activi­ties of the East India Company and the British Raj. At any rate, there was an attempt to understand the theory and practice of land revenue, to clear conceptions or misconceptions regarding the functioning of philosophical and social notions prevalent at least in Bengal and later on other social structures. There was curiosity too; and observations of the earliest techniques of an­thropological investigations meant observations, interviews and