Book 1, Chapter 7
It seems ironically appropriate to be writing of Chanakya's view on appointing key advisors and ministers on the day that UK heads to a change in government. But idle musings aside, lets plow ahead.
At the beginning of the chapter, Chanakya returns to summarising views of others on this rather key political and administrative matter. Actually this is one of the most interesting chapters as it summarises a lot of contemporary political debate regarding realpolitik, loyalty and the rational bases for a king's decisionmaking processes. A lot of the discussion seems extraordinarily modern.
The first source, of Acharya Bhardwaj, is obviously the orthodox one. Bhardawaj believes the the king's key advisors should be drawn from his classmates, as the king knows them well enough to judge their ability and trustworthiness. In addition, they will be loyal given their prior friendship with the king.
Hmmm...seems like oligarchies have long been the preferred mode of governance by the political orthodoxies!
However, this view is contradicted by Acharya Parashar who believes that having seen the king in compromising, nonserious, playful and possibly even humiliating situations, lifelong friends make inappopriate advisors and ministers. These advisors will always be able to insult the king, while the king will not be able to maintain the requisite professional distance from them.
According to Parashar, a king should appoint those who support his secret and/or private projects. These people are driven by a fear of their secret interests and activities being revealed and will thus remain loyal to the king. In addition, the fear will ensure they will never insult or denigrate the king or royal interests.
This appears to be an early articulation of the fear/greed motivations that so much political science, economics and international relations uses in contemporary times!
However, both the views are contested by Acharya Vishalaksha who insists that this fear of secrets being revealed applies to both parties. Just as the advisors are afraid of the king knowing their secrets, the king too will be burdened by his secret activities being known to his advisors. A king whose secrets are known to others may end up as a puppet in the hands of his advisors. Indeed Vishalaksha points out that the moment a king shares his secret plans or activities with an advisor, he loses control of the person.
Parashar counters and expands this discussion by suggesting that the king should appoint those who have proven their loyalty and affection by putting their own lives on the line for the safety and wellbeing of the king.
This view is countered by Acharya Pishun who dismisses these loyalists as "royal devotees" and points out that loyalty has little to do with ability. Instead he suggests that key advisors and ministers should be chosen based on their prior record and proven ability. He emphasises that ability, dedication and capacity for work are not only necessary for key posts, but critical for the efficient running of a realm. In his view key appointments should be driven by ability, according to Pishun, thus creating an early case for a strict meritocracy.
Similarly, Acharya Kaudpadanta also does not believe loyalty is enough for advisors. However, he takes a more conservative approach, suggesting that hereditary traditions are a good way of choosing key advisors. Kaudpadanta believes in a plutocracy, suggesting that the hereditary elite are intimately familiar with the workings of a government and court and thus best suited for key positions. He further suggests that these hereditary elite are not swayed by rewards or by being unpopular with the king, but are guided by a sort of genetic noblesse oblige.
Funnily enough, he suggests that this form of behaviour is more natural, pointing to cows that prefer their old homes rather than new ones.
But it doesn't end there: Kaudpadanta is refuted by Acharya Vatvyadhi who points out that such a hereditary plutocracy creates trouble for a king, as it believes itself entitled to certain privileges. Vatvyadhi lists money, power, even sex, as possible areas of entitled privileges that a hereditary elite may claim for itself, despite the intentions of the king or the welfare of the realm.
He also appears to think that removing such an elite from the politically powerful posts can be a problem for a king, which makes their elevation to such posts a very
risky proposition. Moreover, he points to the fact that such a hereditary elite would have shared moments of upbringing with the king, making them privy to his weakness and early humiliations (echoing the risks articulated by Parashar earlier).
Indeed Vatvyadhi recommends selecting the best prepared people from a pool of new, educated and well prepared experts. He suggests that a lack of intimacy and prior history ensures a better discipline amongst advisors as they continue to respect and fear the king.
This view is countered by Acharya Bahudantiputra (often also named Indra). He points out that ability and preparation are not enough for a king's advisor. Inexperienced ministers and officials may panic in a moment of crisis, just when the king requires their support. Instead he suggests that instead of "expertise", a king should appoint wise, loyal, patient and steady persons to key positions, who can support him in moments of crisis. He insists that key officials are more appropriately chosen based on their characters rather than their expertise.
At this point, the chapter shifts to Chanakya's voice. He considers the above views as appropriate in their particular contexts but begins to formulate his own theories on such key appointments.
Not surprisingly, he takes an extremely pragmatic view of the situation, pointing out that all the views are useful but a king must decide - based on the situation and the times - the criteria that is most useful to him. Thus, loyalty, steadiness, expertise, lack of experience, experience are all potentially useful, but a king must decide what is needed.
Chanakya does warn that key advisors may be drawn from a large group - those who are close to the king, or new to him, experienced or inexperienced - however, key ministerial (official) posts must be limited and appointed with far greater care.
Indeed, Chanakya gives greater importance to officials with executive powers rather than to advisors, ensuring that the administrative roles are performed by people that the king has chosen with far greater care.
The next chapter takes on the issue of these appointments in greater (and practical) detail. Indeed, Chanakya seems to draw up a rather comprehensive job description and core skills/abilities list, which may serve even today as a guide. This will take some time to digest but I hope to get through that in the next few days, so keep an eye out for an update.
Thursday, 6 May 2010
Sunday, 14 March 2010
Guidance for a King's Behaviour: Getting to the Nitty Gritty Now
Book 1, Chapter 6:
Having covered a fair amount of ground on all a king must learn, Chanakya moves on to more practical matters. This chapter is quite succint, with only 6 verses although they are packed tight with advice and strictures.
He begins with referencing control over one's senses as outlined in the chapter before and recommends that a king avoid the losses resulting from succumbing to lust, greed etc, and attempt to live in a disciplined manner.
But after that general advice, the verse gets quite specific as to what a king must do (once again the key point is action and not thought or words). Chanakya reiterates out that the king should keep company of knowledgeable and wise people, selected on their basis of knowledge, age and experience.
With help of these sage advisors, the king must focus on the following: develop his/her own intellect and abilities, as well as use spies/intelligence networks to learn more about one's own realm as well as about neighbouring and enemy states.
Ah, here comes the best bit: a king must simultaneously work towards economic improvement and through this wealth creation, help social development, education and progress of the subjects. At the same time as helping the populace gain social stability and economic prosperity, the king should use the economic development to encourage education and intellectual activity as well as establish strict laws to ensure law and order. The king must reward prominent citizens for their contributions (intellectual and material) at regular intervals.
How very modern! Now comes the use of spin as a political tool: Intellectuals, sages, and prominent thinkers should be rewarded with status and cash as part of improving and maintaining the king's reputation! As always with Chanakya, he appeals most to self-interest rather than instincts of charity.
A final stricture in this verse is that a king must do all these tasks consistently in order to assure the populace that he/she is not only aware and interested in their welfare but also absolutely dedicated to that goal. Oh, our politicians could so learn from old guru Chanakya!
The next set of strictures are for all that a king must avoid. These include sex with women who are married to others (sounds logical!), taking others property or rights (again logical as this would create resentment), and finally, murder and/or wanton destruction of life. These seem to be actions that destabilise a king's reputation as well as control.
However the following strictures are also terrifically on the mark and very modern: a king must keep a regular sleep routine, not sleep too much, not be caught dozing during public acts (boredom was a problem even in ancient times); nor should a king behave in lewd manner, joke with officials, or tell untruths. Moreover, the king should not wear inappropriate clothing or behave in inappropriate way. This again is not for any great moral reason, but rather because these lead to the populace losing faith in a king's abilities and dedication to their interest, and hence to a loss of power and influence.
Almost as if afraid that the above list may put off any aspiring rulers, Chanakya softens his stance in the next verse explaining that a king is not prohibited from enjoyment. Material (and thus physical) pleasures are very much available to a king.
However, for purposes of maintaining power, a king must balance out the three key purusharthas: dharma, artha and kama. This is fascinating as he leaves out moksha as the fourth human goal in its entirety. This may be partly due to the material focus of his treatise, but also because he seems to implicitly assume that a balanced pursuit of the three others shall automatically lead to the fourth. This seems to an incredibly pragmatic approach and one that fits with the purposes of the text.
In the verse, Chanakya also warns against the privileging one of three over the others. Having dealt with the dangers of the excesses of artha and kama in the chapter before, he clarifies that dharma also is bad in excess. Although a king must be righteous, an excess of religiosity (or indeed virtue) is unacceptable and dangerous in a king (someone give a copy of this text to the US Republicans as well as the Taliban!). In fact any imbalance between the practice of these three purusharthas leads to political and social unrest and a loss of power (that carrot-and-stick again).
Here Chanakya inserts an aside, insisting that of the three: dharma, kama and artha, it is artha (or economic prosperity) that is most important. With money, one may act with virtue and according to religious requirements; one may also fulfill one's material and physical desires. Lack of wealth however means that neither kama nor dharma can be achieved. I am guessing that all those new age junkies who think of India as the great spiritual retreat obviously never got around to reading Chanakya!
A final set of injunctions: a king must grant the key ministers, advisors and teachers the right to stop him/her from behaving inappropriately. And he tops this with a brilliant example: Should a king lose control when drinking, these key advisors must step in to prevent such weakness being known widely, as well as warn the king against its dangers. There appears to be the implicit suggestion that the advisors should also act as checks to ensure the king's behaviour does not endanger him. Its a bit like having a royal designated driver! Here Chanakya is specific enough to point out that these advisors should check or critique the king in private, not public (very effective, logical and modern).
Should the advisors not have the right to intervene when a king behaves inappropriately, there will be no external check on a ruler, and this can only result in loss of status, power and eventually the realm.
Finally, Chanakya reminds the king (also a reminder to the reader that the text is meant for aspiring leaders), that a king cannot succeed alone. Indeed a king's success is in large part due to good advisors and ministers, who are able to guide as well as check a king's excesses.
He ends by pointing out that a king with good advisor should be considered fortunate. Moreover, a king should be able to reward an advisor who helps maintain his/her reputation and intervenes to check his/her excesses.
Having covered a fair amount of ground on all a king must learn, Chanakya moves on to more practical matters. This chapter is quite succint, with only 6 verses although they are packed tight with advice and strictures.
He begins with referencing control over one's senses as outlined in the chapter before and recommends that a king avoid the losses resulting from succumbing to lust, greed etc, and attempt to live in a disciplined manner.
But after that general advice, the verse gets quite specific as to what a king must do (once again the key point is action and not thought or words). Chanakya reiterates out that the king should keep company of knowledgeable and wise people, selected on their basis of knowledge, age and experience.
With help of these sage advisors, the king must focus on the following: develop his/her own intellect and abilities, as well as use spies/intelligence networks to learn more about one's own realm as well as about neighbouring and enemy states.
Ah, here comes the best bit: a king must simultaneously work towards economic improvement and through this wealth creation, help social development, education and progress of the subjects. At the same time as helping the populace gain social stability and economic prosperity, the king should use the economic development to encourage education and intellectual activity as well as establish strict laws to ensure law and order. The king must reward prominent citizens for their contributions (intellectual and material) at regular intervals.
How very modern! Now comes the use of spin as a political tool: Intellectuals, sages, and prominent thinkers should be rewarded with status and cash as part of improving and maintaining the king's reputation! As always with Chanakya, he appeals most to self-interest rather than instincts of charity.
A final stricture in this verse is that a king must do all these tasks consistently in order to assure the populace that he/she is not only aware and interested in their welfare but also absolutely dedicated to that goal. Oh, our politicians could so learn from old guru Chanakya!
The next set of strictures are for all that a king must avoid. These include sex with women who are married to others (sounds logical!), taking others property or rights (again logical as this would create resentment), and finally, murder and/or wanton destruction of life. These seem to be actions that destabilise a king's reputation as well as control.
However the following strictures are also terrifically on the mark and very modern: a king must keep a regular sleep routine, not sleep too much, not be caught dozing during public acts (boredom was a problem even in ancient times); nor should a king behave in lewd manner, joke with officials, or tell untruths. Moreover, the king should not wear inappropriate clothing or behave in inappropriate way. This again is not for any great moral reason, but rather because these lead to the populace losing faith in a king's abilities and dedication to their interest, and hence to a loss of power and influence.
Almost as if afraid that the above list may put off any aspiring rulers, Chanakya softens his stance in the next verse explaining that a king is not prohibited from enjoyment. Material (and thus physical) pleasures are very much available to a king.
However, for purposes of maintaining power, a king must balance out the three key purusharthas: dharma, artha and kama. This is fascinating as he leaves out moksha as the fourth human goal in its entirety. This may be partly due to the material focus of his treatise, but also because he seems to implicitly assume that a balanced pursuit of the three others shall automatically lead to the fourth. This seems to an incredibly pragmatic approach and one that fits with the purposes of the text.
In the verse, Chanakya also warns against the privileging one of three over the others. Having dealt with the dangers of the excesses of artha and kama in the chapter before, he clarifies that dharma also is bad in excess. Although a king must be righteous, an excess of religiosity (or indeed virtue) is unacceptable and dangerous in a king (someone give a copy of this text to the US Republicans as well as the Taliban!). In fact any imbalance between the practice of these three purusharthas leads to political and social unrest and a loss of power (that carrot-and-stick again).
Here Chanakya inserts an aside, insisting that of the three: dharma, kama and artha, it is artha (or economic prosperity) that is most important. With money, one may act with virtue and according to religious requirements; one may also fulfill one's material and physical desires. Lack of wealth however means that neither kama nor dharma can be achieved. I am guessing that all those new age junkies who think of India as the great spiritual retreat obviously never got around to reading Chanakya!
A final set of injunctions: a king must grant the key ministers, advisors and teachers the right to stop him/her from behaving inappropriately. And he tops this with a brilliant example: Should a king lose control when drinking, these key advisors must step in to prevent such weakness being known widely, as well as warn the king against its dangers. There appears to be the implicit suggestion that the advisors should also act as checks to ensure the king's behaviour does not endanger him. Its a bit like having a royal designated driver! Here Chanakya is specific enough to point out that these advisors should check or critique the king in private, not public (very effective, logical and modern).
Should the advisors not have the right to intervene when a king behaves inappropriately, there will be no external check on a ruler, and this can only result in loss of status, power and eventually the realm.
Finally, Chanakya reminds the king (also a reminder to the reader that the text is meant for aspiring leaders), that a king cannot succeed alone. Indeed a king's success is in large part due to good advisors and ministers, who are able to guide as well as check a king's excesses.
He ends by pointing out that a king with good advisor should be considered fortunate. Moreover, a king should be able to reward an advisor who helps maintain his/her reputation and intervenes to check his/her excesses.
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Victory over the Senses as a Form of Self-Discipline
Book 1, Chapter 5:
First, apologies for the delay in posting this but the last few weeks have been completely manic at work. However, now, onwards:
This chapter seems to clearly locate Chanakya within the Indic traditions where self-discipline is crucial to material and spiritual success. Other texts, including the Bhagvad Gita stress the issue of self-discipline, but primarily for spiritual reasons. Chanakya links the idea directly to a king's success and failure. So self-discipline is not just about nirvana but rather necessary for gaining and maintaining political and economic power. (Western new age gurus who peddle watered down Indic Mc-philosophies, take heed!)
Chanakya points to the five senses (sight, sound, smell, taste and touch) and how one must win over these to become jitendra - one who has won over the senses - in order to bring under control the following six flaws: lust, anger, greed, pride, enthusiasm, and joy (I translate mad as enthusiasm as in mad-mast but will be happy to find a more precise term in English. All suggestions welcome).
I am especially intrigued as to how different these temptations (in some ways equivalent to the Christian cardinal sins) from their Biblical cousins. While they do address issues of excess, the focus is quite different.
Chanakya explains that once a human being can give up these six temptations, he/she can be considered wise. He suggests following the duties laid down by the shastras as a way of giving up these six temptations. He warns that without this requisite self-discipline, a king may win over land but will soon lose all. I LOVE Chanakya's carrot-and-stick approach to political conduct.
Ah, some history now! Chanakya then goes on to provide examples from history none of whom I am familiar with, which makes me wonder just how much our Indian historians don't do their jobs!
Chanakya starts with examples of kings who gave in to lust (interesting prioritisation here). So first there is King Dandakya of Bhojvansh who lusts after a Brahmin's daughter and abducts her. Not surprisingly, he is cursed by the father and as a result loses his kingdom and his lineage is destroyed. A similar fate befalls the Vaidehi king Karaal.
This is very interesting as Chanakya's focus on real-politik overturns the Shastric prescriptions for the kinds of marriage allowed to a kshatriya which a king would most likely be and which includes kidnapping (yes, thats why Prithviraj was still acting within his dharma when he abducted Sanjukta). Perhaps the issue here is the consent and willingness of the bride? As there is little historical information on the two cases, I am left a bit bemused.
Next set of examples are for kings who surrenders to anger. He mentions King Janmajyeya who angered the Brahmins and King Taaljhandh who quarrelled with the Bhriguvanshis. So obviously pissing off the Brahmins is a bad idea for a king? That appears to be the point of the examples so far.
Oh wait: things improve. Ila's son Pururva gives in to greed and loots from all four varnas and is cursed (never mind, again by the Brahmins). Meanwhile, King Ajbindu of Sauvir manages to anger his subjects thanks to his greed. His fate is rather coyly described as "untimely death due to the people's anger." Does that mean the people killed him off? How I wish I could find a historian who could explain these very interesting references!!!
But we now move to pride and the examples here are better known: Ravana and Duryodhan. Oh more obscure examples here: King Dumbhodrav (I LIKE that name! King Dumbo it was!), and King Haihayaraj Arjun (another topper of a name) who was killed by Parshuram, both for their pride as it led them to act in rash and silly ways.
Interesting switch here: it is not a god that punishes as in the Bible. Instead the six flaws lead people to abandon reason and make mistakes. This makes for a very clear divide in Indic ethics and morality from the Western one: its not what you think, its what you do that counts.
Pride also leads to the downfall of the asura king Vatapi as well as the Yadavas who conspired against and deceived the guru-priest Dvaipayan out of pride.
Two major themes seem to emerge from here: Indian history and texts always warn against "priest-kings" as those are considered dangerous and destabilizing to the social structures. In this chapter that point is definitely emphasised with the Brahmins emerging as a definite counter-balance and check for a king's (and thus kshatriya) behaviour.
The second point is even more curious: Chanakya points out that transgressions by a king who cannot control the six emotional flaws leads to the end of his kingdom (temporal), premature death, as well as the end of his lineage (a big one in Indic traditions). Yet NOT transgressing provides rewards that are entirely temporal: a peaceful and prosperous reign until the end of the king's life. Here the stick definitely carries more weight than carrots. Or perhaps this is yet another indication of how strong a materialist focus many of Indic philosophical traditions have?
The chapter ends with pointing out the good kings, including: Jaamdaganya (son of Jaamdagni), Parshuram, Ambreesh, and Naabhaag (son of Nabhag).
I am left slightly discontent with this chapter not for philosophical reason but because many of these names refer to kings I know little about. I can understand that these are from pre-Mauryan times but it does seem that we could do better at compiling information about them today.
First, apologies for the delay in posting this but the last few weeks have been completely manic at work. However, now, onwards:
This chapter seems to clearly locate Chanakya within the Indic traditions where self-discipline is crucial to material and spiritual success. Other texts, including the Bhagvad Gita stress the issue of self-discipline, but primarily for spiritual reasons. Chanakya links the idea directly to a king's success and failure. So self-discipline is not just about nirvana but rather necessary for gaining and maintaining political and economic power. (Western new age gurus who peddle watered down Indic Mc-philosophies, take heed!)
Chanakya points to the five senses (sight, sound, smell, taste and touch) and how one must win over these to become jitendra - one who has won over the senses - in order to bring under control the following six flaws: lust, anger, greed, pride, enthusiasm, and joy (I translate mad as enthusiasm as in mad-mast but will be happy to find a more precise term in English. All suggestions welcome).
I am especially intrigued as to how different these temptations (in some ways equivalent to the Christian cardinal sins) from their Biblical cousins. While they do address issues of excess, the focus is quite different.
Chanakya explains that once a human being can give up these six temptations, he/she can be considered wise. He suggests following the duties laid down by the shastras as a way of giving up these six temptations. He warns that without this requisite self-discipline, a king may win over land but will soon lose all. I LOVE Chanakya's carrot-and-stick approach to political conduct.
Ah, some history now! Chanakya then goes on to provide examples from history none of whom I am familiar with, which makes me wonder just how much our Indian historians don't do their jobs!
Chanakya starts with examples of kings who gave in to lust (interesting prioritisation here). So first there is King Dandakya of Bhojvansh who lusts after a Brahmin's daughter and abducts her. Not surprisingly, he is cursed by the father and as a result loses his kingdom and his lineage is destroyed. A similar fate befalls the Vaidehi king Karaal.
This is very interesting as Chanakya's focus on real-politik overturns the Shastric prescriptions for the kinds of marriage allowed to a kshatriya which a king would most likely be and which includes kidnapping (yes, thats why Prithviraj was still acting within his dharma when he abducted Sanjukta). Perhaps the issue here is the consent and willingness of the bride? As there is little historical information on the two cases, I am left a bit bemused.
Next set of examples are for kings who surrenders to anger. He mentions King Janmajyeya who angered the Brahmins and King Taaljhandh who quarrelled with the Bhriguvanshis. So obviously pissing off the Brahmins is a bad idea for a king? That appears to be the point of the examples so far.
Oh wait: things improve. Ila's son Pururva gives in to greed and loots from all four varnas and is cursed (never mind, again by the Brahmins). Meanwhile, King Ajbindu of Sauvir manages to anger his subjects thanks to his greed. His fate is rather coyly described as "untimely death due to the people's anger." Does that mean the people killed him off? How I wish I could find a historian who could explain these very interesting references!!!
But we now move to pride and the examples here are better known: Ravana and Duryodhan. Oh more obscure examples here: King Dumbhodrav (I LIKE that name! King Dumbo it was!), and King Haihayaraj Arjun (another topper of a name) who was killed by Parshuram, both for their pride as it led them to act in rash and silly ways.
Interesting switch here: it is not a god that punishes as in the Bible. Instead the six flaws lead people to abandon reason and make mistakes. This makes for a very clear divide in Indic ethics and morality from the Western one: its not what you think, its what you do that counts.
Pride also leads to the downfall of the asura king Vatapi as well as the Yadavas who conspired against and deceived the guru-priest Dvaipayan out of pride.
Two major themes seem to emerge from here: Indian history and texts always warn against "priest-kings" as those are considered dangerous and destabilizing to the social structures. In this chapter that point is definitely emphasised with the Brahmins emerging as a definite counter-balance and check for a king's (and thus kshatriya) behaviour.
The second point is even more curious: Chanakya points out that transgressions by a king who cannot control the six emotional flaws leads to the end of his kingdom (temporal), premature death, as well as the end of his lineage (a big one in Indic traditions). Yet NOT transgressing provides rewards that are entirely temporal: a peaceful and prosperous reign until the end of the king's life. Here the stick definitely carries more weight than carrots. Or perhaps this is yet another indication of how strong a materialist focus many of Indic philosophical traditions have?
The chapter ends with pointing out the good kings, including: Jaamdaganya (son of Jaamdagni), Parshuram, Ambreesh, and Naabhaag (son of Nabhag).
I am left slightly discontent with this chapter not for philosophical reason but because many of these names refer to kings I know little about. I can understand that these are from pre-Mauryan times but it does seem that we could do better at compiling information about them today.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
The Advantage of Good Company: Whoa, getting modern now
Book 1, Chapter 4:
Just when I thought things were changing, Chanakya goes back to hammering home the issues of a king's education. Actually perhaps now its more accurate to say that we're back to a king's over all development.
This time he outlines the advantages of networking/socialising with influential people, as well as those with greater experience. And not surprisingly, makes a rather persuasive case for hanging out with those of greater experience, strength, intelligence and power. Hmmm...how would this translate to social media?
After summarizing what has gone on in the previous chapters, Chanakya points out that only education and experience grant ability to a person (not making a case here for the king, but all citizens it appears). First mention then of meritocracy! Cool!
Interestingly he separates ability (although perhaps character would be a better term) into two aspects: one that is only for show and thus for profit, and the other which is part of oneself and developed over time through education and experience. He obviously thinks the second one is better.
This second form can be developed by those who (this gets interesting):
1. Are capable of hearing harsh, even unpleasant truths,
2. Wish to learn knowledge acquired by hard work and experience (I assume of others),
3. Want to acquire knowledge thus learned and make it their own,
4. Want to debate viewpoints they may hold, even with those who do not agree,
5. Take on truth they learn as knowledge,
6. Want to acquire knowledge after examining, debating, and testing its truth.
WHOA! I like this early articulation of the liberal mind!
But unfortunately the next sloka completely goes against this wonderful liberal thinking as it points out that a student has no right to pick his/her area of study. Instead it is the teachers who, after testing for aptitude, shall decide the field of study.
This weird contradiction reminds me of how often ancient texts appear to have contradictory elements. How much of it is due to the practice of including commentary or new text within an old one (historically proven, this fact)? This would suggest that not all of this particular text is also untampered. I will be keeping tabs on the anomalies, but this one is a real stand out so far.
The next part of the book gets specific on when education must begin: after the ceremony of shaving the child's head (mundan), the child should be taught the alphabet and numbers. The four areas of education (as pointed out earlier) are taught upon the "second birth/thread" ceremony. I think this makes it post-puberty. These advanced learnings include knowledge acquired at universities, from political and economic experts, and other necessary advanced knowledge.
Finally, Chanakya suggests a sort of internship where a student may learn about key practical aspects - truce, treaties, agreements - on a daily basis by observing important people in the various fields. How very modern!
Okay another whammy: apparently there is a time span specified for this advanced learning: a student must learn for 16 years, after the thread ceremony.
Looking at other texts (such as Manu), the thread ceremony is around ten or twelves years of age. This suggests that a person must study till an average of 24 or 25 years of age. This throws up a very interesting fact: if a person may not be married while a student (ie brahmacharya ashram), there appears to be a definite injunction against child marriages in India.
Indeed, in this case, even the current age of marriage for men and women in India according the Hindu Family law contravenes the age provided by Chanakya.
Oh wait: there is a even a varna-based chronology for the thread ceremony: Brahmans at the age of 8, Kshatriyas at 10 and Vaishyas at 12. This would mean that a banker/trader can only marry at the age of 27, which makes perfect logical sense in modern terms: university, masters, at least three years of initial work experience before marriage!
Okay now back to the king's schedule. I assume these final verses are about the "internship" and continued education that Chanakya recommends.
He suggests that a king must practice and learn military-linked matters: using weapons, control of elephants and horses in the morning.
After lunch and post-rest, a king must take up study of political and religious theory, biographies, histories, as well as stories from the past, present and faraway lands. I like the fact that stories get a mention: obviously ancient Indians were better than contemporary social scientist in realising the value of literature as a source of information.
Finally, a king must keep aside the night and the time after his duties to learn new subjects and facts. Here, Chanakya is very specific, pointing out that a king must make a real effort to learn new things, asking it to be explained by experts until its absolutely clear.
Concluding the chapter, Chanakya emphasises the importance of continued learning by explaining that new knowledge keeps the brain flexible and quick, develops intellect, provides confidence and stregth.
But beyond the advantages to the self, such continued learning ensures that a king is capable of responding to the realm's needs, can forward-plan the welfare of the people, serve as a model for the people, as well as encourage the populace to do the same.
Boy! The Americans need to read this section! See why Obama is better than Sarah Palin? Dumbing down of the political elite is a bad idea for the entire realm, or so Chanakya would say.
Just when I thought things were changing, Chanakya goes back to hammering home the issues of a king's education. Actually perhaps now its more accurate to say that we're back to a king's over all development.
This time he outlines the advantages of networking/socialising with influential people, as well as those with greater experience. And not surprisingly, makes a rather persuasive case for hanging out with those of greater experience, strength, intelligence and power. Hmmm...how would this translate to social media?
After summarizing what has gone on in the previous chapters, Chanakya points out that only education and experience grant ability to a person (not making a case here for the king, but all citizens it appears). First mention then of meritocracy! Cool!
Interestingly he separates ability (although perhaps character would be a better term) into two aspects: one that is only for show and thus for profit, and the other which is part of oneself and developed over time through education and experience. He obviously thinks the second one is better.
This second form can be developed by those who (this gets interesting):
1. Are capable of hearing harsh, even unpleasant truths,
2. Wish to learn knowledge acquired by hard work and experience (I assume of others),
3. Want to acquire knowledge thus learned and make it their own,
4. Want to debate viewpoints they may hold, even with those who do not agree,
5. Take on truth they learn as knowledge,
6. Want to acquire knowledge after examining, debating, and testing its truth.
WHOA! I like this early articulation of the liberal mind!
But unfortunately the next sloka completely goes against this wonderful liberal thinking as it points out that a student has no right to pick his/her area of study. Instead it is the teachers who, after testing for aptitude, shall decide the field of study.
This weird contradiction reminds me of how often ancient texts appear to have contradictory elements. How much of it is due to the practice of including commentary or new text within an old one (historically proven, this fact)? This would suggest that not all of this particular text is also untampered. I will be keeping tabs on the anomalies, but this one is a real stand out so far.
The next part of the book gets specific on when education must begin: after the ceremony of shaving the child's head (mundan), the child should be taught the alphabet and numbers. The four areas of education (as pointed out earlier) are taught upon the "second birth/thread" ceremony. I think this makes it post-puberty. These advanced learnings include knowledge acquired at universities, from political and economic experts, and other necessary advanced knowledge.
Finally, Chanakya suggests a sort of internship where a student may learn about key practical aspects - truce, treaties, agreements - on a daily basis by observing important people in the various fields. How very modern!
Okay another whammy: apparently there is a time span specified for this advanced learning: a student must learn for 16 years, after the thread ceremony.
Looking at other texts (such as Manu), the thread ceremony is around ten or twelves years of age. This suggests that a person must study till an average of 24 or 25 years of age. This throws up a very interesting fact: if a person may not be married while a student (ie brahmacharya ashram), there appears to be a definite injunction against child marriages in India.
Indeed, in this case, even the current age of marriage for men and women in India according the Hindu Family law contravenes the age provided by Chanakya.
Oh wait: there is a even a varna-based chronology for the thread ceremony: Brahmans at the age of 8, Kshatriyas at 10 and Vaishyas at 12. This would mean that a banker/trader can only marry at the age of 27, which makes perfect logical sense in modern terms: university, masters, at least three years of initial work experience before marriage!
Okay now back to the king's schedule. I assume these final verses are about the "internship" and continued education that Chanakya recommends.
He suggests that a king must practice and learn military-linked matters: using weapons, control of elephants and horses in the morning.
After lunch and post-rest, a king must take up study of political and religious theory, biographies, histories, as well as stories from the past, present and faraway lands. I like the fact that stories get a mention: obviously ancient Indians were better than contemporary social scientist in realising the value of literature as a source of information.
Finally, a king must keep aside the night and the time after his duties to learn new subjects and facts. Here, Chanakya is very specific, pointing out that a king must make a real effort to learn new things, asking it to be explained by experts until its absolutely clear.
Concluding the chapter, Chanakya emphasises the importance of continued learning by explaining that new knowledge keeps the brain flexible and quick, develops intellect, provides confidence and stregth.
But beyond the advantages to the self, such continued learning ensures that a king is capable of responding to the realm's needs, can forward-plan the welfare of the people, serve as a model for the people, as well as encourage the populace to do the same.
Boy! The Americans need to read this section! See why Obama is better than Sarah Palin? Dumbing down of the political elite is a bad idea for the entire realm, or so Chanakya would say.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Importance of Wealth and Strength: Now We're Getting to the Meat
Book 1, Chapter 3:
After the discussion on the importance of self-knowledge and Vedic knowledge and rules, Chanakya moves on to the real meat of his theory: importance of economic knowledge and an understanding of "statecraft."
This is where things get interesting as Chanakya reveals himself the ultimate pragmatist.
According to Chanakya, economic knowledge extends to agricultre, animal husbandry, metalcraft, mining and trade (nice summary of ancient economic activity there!) This knowledge employs these economic activities to create wealth, and to create and enhance status by virtue of possessions, servants, etc through that wealth. For a king, this knowledge is the means of improving treasure, and through that treasure, improving military might. That military might is the only practical way a king may control his/her subjects and ensure supremacy over the enemy!
WHOA! This is the Chanakya I have grown up with: practical beyond belief. Strange how he emphasises the necessity of wealth creation as necessary foundation for a kingdom's supremacy, maintenance and expansion.
However, the next verse gets a bit complicated. Chanakya points out that self-knowledge, Vedic knowledge and economic know-how are really reliant on a thorough understanding of statecraft. It is the fear of force/punishment (Chanakya uses the term "dand-niti") that ensure that friends and foes behave appropriately and the populace follows the correct path! I love this strangely authoritarian streak he seems to hold at his theoretical core!
However - WAIT! He then quotes earlier scholars who believed that statecraft or dand-niti alone would ensure that the populace abided by the law and that the enemies are kept under control. In fact, apparently earlier scholars give primacy to this policy of force.
Chanakya however is quite liberal for his times, pointing out that a king who is too strict and eager to mete out punishment is eventually hated by the subjects. On the other hand, a king who is too lax incites contempt from the populace. This is why the king must use force with a great deal of care.
He further warns that a king must not use punishment while influenced by lust or greed, anger or a desire for vengeance. In such cases, even the weak, the ascetics and those renouncing citizen privileges are angered, and the hatred and anger of the citizenry (those of the grahastya ashram) swells beyond control. A discontent populace is dangerous for a king's power.
On the other hand, a lax ruler creates a society without law and order, where only the strong prevail, and the weak are left unsafe and vulnerable. These are moments of anarchy and bode ill for a king's rule.
But a king who practises the policy of force carefully and wisely ensures that even the weak of the realm feel protected, invulnerable and content.
As such, Chanakya explains that when a king practises a policy of force applied wisely is when the realm can be safe and stable. In such cases, force is applied through knowlege and with impartiality. This practise ensures that the populace stays within the boundaries of the law, encourages people to follow the laws, and thus ensures security and stability within the realm.
Hmmmm....slightly authoritarian but I can see an early articulation of the allure of a benign dictatorship.
After the discussion on the importance of self-knowledge and Vedic knowledge and rules, Chanakya moves on to the real meat of his theory: importance of economic knowledge and an understanding of "statecraft."
This is where things get interesting as Chanakya reveals himself the ultimate pragmatist.
According to Chanakya, economic knowledge extends to agricultre, animal husbandry, metalcraft, mining and trade (nice summary of ancient economic activity there!) This knowledge employs these economic activities to create wealth, and to create and enhance status by virtue of possessions, servants, etc through that wealth. For a king, this knowledge is the means of improving treasure, and through that treasure, improving military might. That military might is the only practical way a king may control his/her subjects and ensure supremacy over the enemy!
WHOA! This is the Chanakya I have grown up with: practical beyond belief. Strange how he emphasises the necessity of wealth creation as necessary foundation for a kingdom's supremacy, maintenance and expansion.
However, the next verse gets a bit complicated. Chanakya points out that self-knowledge, Vedic knowledge and economic know-how are really reliant on a thorough understanding of statecraft. It is the fear of force/punishment (Chanakya uses the term "dand-niti") that ensure that friends and foes behave appropriately and the populace follows the correct path! I love this strangely authoritarian streak he seems to hold at his theoretical core!
However - WAIT! He then quotes earlier scholars who believed that statecraft or dand-niti alone would ensure that the populace abided by the law and that the enemies are kept under control. In fact, apparently earlier scholars give primacy to this policy of force.
Chanakya however is quite liberal for his times, pointing out that a king who is too strict and eager to mete out punishment is eventually hated by the subjects. On the other hand, a king who is too lax incites contempt from the populace. This is why the king must use force with a great deal of care.
He further warns that a king must not use punishment while influenced by lust or greed, anger or a desire for vengeance. In such cases, even the weak, the ascetics and those renouncing citizen privileges are angered, and the hatred and anger of the citizenry (those of the grahastya ashram) swells beyond control. A discontent populace is dangerous for a king's power.
On the other hand, a lax ruler creates a society without law and order, where only the strong prevail, and the weak are left unsafe and vulnerable. These are moments of anarchy and bode ill for a king's rule.
But a king who practises the policy of force carefully and wisely ensures that even the weak of the realm feel protected, invulnerable and content.
As such, Chanakya explains that when a king practises a policy of force applied wisely is when the realm can be safe and stable. In such cases, force is applied through knowlege and with impartiality. This practise ensures that the populace stays within the boundaries of the law, encourages people to follow the laws, and thus ensures security and stability within the realm.
Hmmmm....slightly authoritarian but I can see an early articulation of the allure of a benign dictatorship.
Friday, 8 January 2010
A King's Education Completed: Final Injunctions for a Successful King
Okay folks, sorry I've been remiss in posting stuff here, but the call of the holiday season was a little too insistent. In any case, as a dutiful member of the second stage of life, I was following Chanakya's injunctions of feeding and taking care of friends, family and other members of the community.
Book 1, Chapter 2, concluded:
The final verses of this chapter lay out a general set of rules for all four ashrams and varnas. These are interesting as they almost entirely contradict the exigencies of being a ruler:
1. One must not harm another being either in thought, word or action. This seems to go against the need for martial action or indeed punishment that a ruler must necessarily exercise. I think this one makes more sense when considered in the context of the Bhagwad Gita's view of warrior dharma where violence is acceptable when carried out without anger, fear, hatred or greed. Again this seems to suggest that its not the act itself but the motivation for it that matters most within the Hindu tradition.
2. To remain truthful and reject any form of deceit. Ummm, not sure how this impacts the very complex discussion on espionage and deception that Chanakya takes up later. But at this stage, I am assuming this links to the point above where this is about a person's internal integrity and truth rather than what they do externally. Thus a ruler may lie as long as he/she is aware of the need for deceipt and is practising it in line with their duty as a ruler. Wonder if I am getting this one right?
3. Retain integrity although my Hindi translation uses the term pavitra which is not quite the same as pure or sacred. In fact no classic Indian language appears to contain the word for sacred, thus rejecting the Western/Semitic distinction between the sacred and the profane. Classical Indian texts only distinguish between clean and unclean, thus suggesting that all of life can be rendered from one to the other through pollution or cleansing. Thus nothing in the universe occupies a stable sacredness. Cool! I like this idea.
4. To eschew envy and not hold grudges. This one seems again to go back to the idea of acting without fear or greed, or actively solely for the purpose of fulfilling one's dharma rather than for greater gain.
5. And of course, tolerance and compassion! I can foresee an entire post on the issue of warrior's compassion and its philosophy.
Chanakya further points out that following one's dharma leads to happiness and moksha (liberation from the cycle of rebirth), while straying from it leads to social disharmony and damages one's karmic progression.
And now comes the whammy! Chanakya explains that a king's duties include not only following his/her individual path of duty but also creating the necessary political and social structures to ensure that the realms subjects also follow their dharma.
Part of this may be achieved by honouring those who are virtuous (ie follow the rules for varna and ashram laid out earlier) and punishing those who stray from those. Only when these laws are maintained may a king be counted as successful.
Ah! I suddenly am beginning to see why "saam, daam, dand, bhed" (mind, money, force and secret) are going to be employed by this rather well-educated king!
Well, that concludes this chapter. Chapter 3 appears quite short although again fairly dense. I am beginning to realise that Chanakya is just setting the philosophical stage for the realpolitik thats to follow.
Book 1, Chapter 2, concluded:
The final verses of this chapter lay out a general set of rules for all four ashrams and varnas. These are interesting as they almost entirely contradict the exigencies of being a ruler:
1. One must not harm another being either in thought, word or action. This seems to go against the need for martial action or indeed punishment that a ruler must necessarily exercise. I think this one makes more sense when considered in the context of the Bhagwad Gita's view of warrior dharma where violence is acceptable when carried out without anger, fear, hatred or greed. Again this seems to suggest that its not the act itself but the motivation for it that matters most within the Hindu tradition.
2. To remain truthful and reject any form of deceit. Ummm, not sure how this impacts the very complex discussion on espionage and deception that Chanakya takes up later. But at this stage, I am assuming this links to the point above where this is about a person's internal integrity and truth rather than what they do externally. Thus a ruler may lie as long as he/she is aware of the need for deceipt and is practising it in line with their duty as a ruler. Wonder if I am getting this one right?
3. Retain integrity although my Hindi translation uses the term pavitra which is not quite the same as pure or sacred. In fact no classic Indian language appears to contain the word for sacred, thus rejecting the Western/Semitic distinction between the sacred and the profane. Classical Indian texts only distinguish between clean and unclean, thus suggesting that all of life can be rendered from one to the other through pollution or cleansing. Thus nothing in the universe occupies a stable sacredness. Cool! I like this idea.
4. To eschew envy and not hold grudges. This one seems again to go back to the idea of acting without fear or greed, or actively solely for the purpose of fulfilling one's dharma rather than for greater gain.
5. And of course, tolerance and compassion! I can foresee an entire post on the issue of warrior's compassion and its philosophy.
Chanakya further points out that following one's dharma leads to happiness and moksha (liberation from the cycle of rebirth), while straying from it leads to social disharmony and damages one's karmic progression.
And now comes the whammy! Chanakya explains that a king's duties include not only following his/her individual path of duty but also creating the necessary political and social structures to ensure that the realms subjects also follow their dharma.
Part of this may be achieved by honouring those who are virtuous (ie follow the rules for varna and ashram laid out earlier) and punishing those who stray from those. Only when these laws are maintained may a king be counted as successful.
Ah! I suddenly am beginning to see why "saam, daam, dand, bhed" (mind, money, force and secret) are going to be employed by this rather well-educated king!
Well, that concludes this chapter. Chapter 3 appears quite short although again fairly dense. I am beginning to realise that Chanakya is just setting the philosophical stage for the realpolitik thats to follow.
Saturday, 5 December 2009
A King's Education Continued: Duties for the Four Stages of Life
Sorry for the delay in posting this but its been a rough, hectic week. But onwards...
Book 1, Chapter 2 continued:
After pointing to the duties of the four varnas, Chanakya continues to outline the duties of the four ashrams, or stages of life. I find it curious that he begins this list with the grahastha ashram, or the second stage. But I suppose it is not that odd given that his primary preoccupation is with the stage of life that contributes to political and economic activity.
NB: Hindu tradition divides human life into four stages: Brahmachara or study and growth and development; Grahastha or "householder" stage or when a person marries, raises a family and grows professionally; Vanaprastha stage that is for preparing to renounce material pleasures and preparations for the final stage; Sanyasa or renunciation when a person gives up all material attachment to follow spiritual growth.
1. Chanakya begins by listing the duties for the second or "householder" stage of life. These involve earning a living by taking up a profession indicated by the tradition set up by one's ancestors. Is this the first sign of rigidity perhaps?
But I don't read this as a stricture from Chanakya but rather a suggestion. It would make sense to follow in the path of the elders, especially in a primarily agrarian society.
He also explicitly points out that a man must marry a woman according to his social circumstance and station (how terrifically modern and practical!). However he does point out here that this marriage may be with someone of a different "people" or "tribe."
Echoing obviously the discomfort with female menstruation found in many cultures, Chanakya further indicates that sexual relations within marriage must be carried out only after the menstrual cycle and only after ritual cleansing. Funny, just how many ancient cultures found this aspect of human biology discomfitting!
The final duty for the householder is more interesting from a social angle: only after gods, ancestors, guests and servants have been duly fed and taken care of can the house-holder eat his own food. I like the emphasis on taking care of others first, especially those who are economically and socially inferior or dependent. Definitely this is an incipient/early articulation of social responsibility as a necessary aspect of citizenship!
2. For the student or a young person in preparation, Chanakya lists another set of duties. Not only does he recommend independent study (I like this!), chastity (teenage pregnancies were frowned upon even back then, I guess), ritual ablutions and learning the rites, but also points to the necessity of begging for one's sustenance.
This is a an ancient tradition where the students would be required to leave the gurukul or school to organise the food for themselves, their teachers and the school itself, irrespective of a student's social status and political power.
The practice seems intended to instill a sense of equality within the student group and to teach humility to the scions of powerful dynasties. It seems like a more effective way of teaching humility and responsibility than accepting support from parents. I wonder if there is a way to adapt this idea to modern education? Would make for an interesting experiment.
Chanakya's final injunction here is that a student must develop self-discipline by following the example of the teacher, the sons of the teacher (indication again of inherited professions), and in their absence, of a reputable adult.
AHA!!!! I just realised the reason for the strange order in listing the four stages!
3. The third stage requires a person to revert to many of the habits of a student - living with frugality and eliminating sexual pleasure and desires, and focussing on independent study (I assume here Chanakya means study of religious texts and meditation).
And now he gets very specific on the elements of material frugality: one must sleep on the floor, and dress in deer hide (as opposed to more comfortable fabrics like silk, cotton or wool). This is also the stage where a person must offer service to gods, ancestors and guests. Moreover, the diet in this stage must shift to steadily to only eating what is found in the forest or vana (Ah! Hence the name!)
Wow! This is a real tough one as reverting to a frugal, modest life after one has followed a life of pleasure is always much harder. The emphasis here seems to be on re-learning humility and modesty as well as finding ways of eliminating physical desires.
4. Finally, the fourth stage of life is renunciation. The first duty here is to bring an end to the dominion of the five senses: I guess this is why the earlier stage is so focussed on controlling material pleasure.
Chanakya points out that this requires not beginning any new projects and cutting oneself off from social groups and affiliations (including family). In this stage, a person must rely on charity for sustenance (and I assume whatever the forest will provide) and should not work for a living.
Moreover a person should not stay in a single place, even in a forest, but rather roam from one place to the other, refusing to form any attachment to any place of living. This final one seems like a real tough stricture: having cut off family and friends, this seems to require even giving up the last vestiges of attachment to the physical world.
Chanakya seems to think that by such renunciation, together with bathing in clear waters, self-study and meditation, a human being cleanses one's inside and out.
I wonder if this is in meant to be an elaborate preparation for facing death? Especially as in the Hindu tradition, death is meant to be a passage to another life? It would make sense in this case to give up all baggage from a current life in order to begin afresh.
Living as I do - in the West - I am always fascinated by people who tell me they follow Buddhism or other "eastern" philosophies/lifestyles because they find the Biblical traditions harsh. Yet to me this "eastern" articulation of life seems like a much harsher view of human life, especially as it has no possibility of any intervention from any deity or power beyond the self to offer comfort or support. Far from being comforting or safe, this is definitely one long school of hard knocks! On the other hand, I like the fact that the ultimate responsibility and ultimate power is left to the individual.
Interesting paradox again: seems that Hinduism requires identity to be simultaneously social and family driven while also being ultimately - and remorselessly - individualistic.
In the final verses of this chapter, Chanakya starts to tie up the two ideas of social structure and stages of life. This one has made me think a lot. Next post will be about the summing up verses but also about my thoughts on this chapter which really has posed more questions than provided answers.
Book 1, Chapter 2 continued:
After pointing to the duties of the four varnas, Chanakya continues to outline the duties of the four ashrams, or stages of life. I find it curious that he begins this list with the grahastha ashram, or the second stage. But I suppose it is not that odd given that his primary preoccupation is with the stage of life that contributes to political and economic activity.
NB: Hindu tradition divides human life into four stages: Brahmachara or study and growth and development; Grahastha or "householder" stage or when a person marries, raises a family and grows professionally; Vanaprastha stage that is for preparing to renounce material pleasures and preparations for the final stage; Sanyasa or renunciation when a person gives up all material attachment to follow spiritual growth.
1. Chanakya begins by listing the duties for the second or "householder" stage of life. These involve earning a living by taking up a profession indicated by the tradition set up by one's ancestors. Is this the first sign of rigidity perhaps?
But I don't read this as a stricture from Chanakya but rather a suggestion. It would make sense to follow in the path of the elders, especially in a primarily agrarian society.
He also explicitly points out that a man must marry a woman according to his social circumstance and station (how terrifically modern and practical!). However he does point out here that this marriage may be with someone of a different "people" or "tribe."
Echoing obviously the discomfort with female menstruation found in many cultures, Chanakya further indicates that sexual relations within marriage must be carried out only after the menstrual cycle and only after ritual cleansing. Funny, just how many ancient cultures found this aspect of human biology discomfitting!
The final duty for the householder is more interesting from a social angle: only after gods, ancestors, guests and servants have been duly fed and taken care of can the house-holder eat his own food. I like the emphasis on taking care of others first, especially those who are economically and socially inferior or dependent. Definitely this is an incipient/early articulation of social responsibility as a necessary aspect of citizenship!
2. For the student or a young person in preparation, Chanakya lists another set of duties. Not only does he recommend independent study (I like this!), chastity (teenage pregnancies were frowned upon even back then, I guess), ritual ablutions and learning the rites, but also points to the necessity of begging for one's sustenance.
This is a an ancient tradition where the students would be required to leave the gurukul or school to organise the food for themselves, their teachers and the school itself, irrespective of a student's social status and political power.
The practice seems intended to instill a sense of equality within the student group and to teach humility to the scions of powerful dynasties. It seems like a more effective way of teaching humility and responsibility than accepting support from parents. I wonder if there is a way to adapt this idea to modern education? Would make for an interesting experiment.
Chanakya's final injunction here is that a student must develop self-discipline by following the example of the teacher, the sons of the teacher (indication again of inherited professions), and in their absence, of a reputable adult.
AHA!!!! I just realised the reason for the strange order in listing the four stages!
3. The third stage requires a person to revert to many of the habits of a student - living with frugality and eliminating sexual pleasure and desires, and focussing on independent study (I assume here Chanakya means study of religious texts and meditation).
And now he gets very specific on the elements of material frugality: one must sleep on the floor, and dress in deer hide (as opposed to more comfortable fabrics like silk, cotton or wool). This is also the stage where a person must offer service to gods, ancestors and guests. Moreover, the diet in this stage must shift to steadily to only eating what is found in the forest or vana (Ah! Hence the name!)
Wow! This is a real tough one as reverting to a frugal, modest life after one has followed a life of pleasure is always much harder. The emphasis here seems to be on re-learning humility and modesty as well as finding ways of eliminating physical desires.
4. Finally, the fourth stage of life is renunciation. The first duty here is to bring an end to the dominion of the five senses: I guess this is why the earlier stage is so focussed on controlling material pleasure.
Chanakya points out that this requires not beginning any new projects and cutting oneself off from social groups and affiliations (including family). In this stage, a person must rely on charity for sustenance (and I assume whatever the forest will provide) and should not work for a living.
Moreover a person should not stay in a single place, even in a forest, but rather roam from one place to the other, refusing to form any attachment to any place of living. This final one seems like a real tough stricture: having cut off family and friends, this seems to require even giving up the last vestiges of attachment to the physical world.
Chanakya seems to think that by such renunciation, together with bathing in clear waters, self-study and meditation, a human being cleanses one's inside and out.
I wonder if this is in meant to be an elaborate preparation for facing death? Especially as in the Hindu tradition, death is meant to be a passage to another life? It would make sense in this case to give up all baggage from a current life in order to begin afresh.
Living as I do - in the West - I am always fascinated by people who tell me they follow Buddhism or other "eastern" philosophies/lifestyles because they find the Biblical traditions harsh. Yet to me this "eastern" articulation of life seems like a much harsher view of human life, especially as it has no possibility of any intervention from any deity or power beyond the self to offer comfort or support. Far from being comforting or safe, this is definitely one long school of hard knocks! On the other hand, I like the fact that the ultimate responsibility and ultimate power is left to the individual.
Interesting paradox again: seems that Hinduism requires identity to be simultaneously social and family driven while also being ultimately - and remorselessly - individualistic.
In the final verses of this chapter, Chanakya starts to tie up the two ideas of social structure and stages of life. This one has made me think a lot. Next post will be about the summing up verses but also about my thoughts on this chapter which really has posed more questions than provided answers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
