<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="Book.css">
<title>-017_Three Degrees of Social Organization.htm</title>
</head>
<div Class="Bigdiv">
 
			
<p class="para_center">THREE DEGREES OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 
</p>
<br>
<p class="para"> Declaration of Rights is a characteristic
modem phenomenon. It is a message of liberty
and freedom, no doubt,—of secular liberty and freedom—things not very common in the old world; and yet, at the same time, it is a clarion that calls for and prepares strife and battle. If the conception of Right has sanctified the individual or a unit collectivity, it has also, <i>pari passu, </i>developed a fissiparous tendency in human organization. Society based on or living by the principle of Rights becomes naturally and inevitably a competitive society. Where man is regarded as nothing more— and, of course, nothing less—than a bundle of rights, the human aggregation is bound to be an exact image of Darwinian Nature—red in tooth and claw.
</p><br>
<p class="para">
But 'Rights' is not the only term on which an ideal or even a decent society can be based. There is another term which can serve equally well, if not better. I am obviously referring to the conception of duty.   It is
</p><br>
<p class="pageno">Page-133</p>
<hr>
<p class="para">an old-world conception; it is a conception particularly familiar to the East. The Indian term for Right is also the term for Duty— <i>adhik</i>&#257;<i>ra </i>means both. In Europe too, in more recent times, when after the frustration of the dream of the new world envisaged by the French Revolution, man was called upon again to rise and hope, it was Mazzini who brought forward the new or discarded principle as a <i>mantra </i>replacing the other more dangerous one. A hierarchy of duties was given by him as the pattern of a fulfilled ideal life. In India in out day the distinction between the two attitudes was very strongly insisted upon by the great Vivekananda.
</p><br>
<p class="para">
Vivekananda said that if human society was to be remodelled, one must first of all learn to think and act not in terms of claims and rights but in terms of duties and obligations. Fulfil your duties conscientiously; the rights will take care of themselves; it is such an attitude that can give man the right poise, the right impetus, the right outlook in regard to collective living. If, instead of each one's demanding what he considers as his dues and and consequently scrambling and battling for them, and most often not getting them or getting at a ruinous price—such as made Arjuna
</p><br>
<p class="pageno">Page-134</p>
<hr>
<p class="para">cry, &quot;What shall I do with all this kingdom if in regaining it I lose my kith and kin and all that are dear to me?&quot;—if, indeed, instead of claiming one's rights, one were content to know one's duty and to do it as it should be done, then not only would there be peace and amity upon earth, but also each one, far from losing anything, would find miraculously all that he most needed—the necessary, the right rights and all that they involve.
</p><br>
<p class="para">
It might be objected here, however, that actually in the history of humanity the conception of Duty has been no less pugnacious than that of Right. In certain ages and among certain peoples, for example, it was considered the imperative duty of the faithful to kill or convert by force or otherwise as many as possible belonging to other faiths: it was the mission of the good shepherd to burn the impious and the heretic. In recent times, it was a sense of high and solemn duty that perpetrated the brutalities that have been termed &quot;purges,&quot; undertaken, it appears, to purify and preserve the integrity of a particular ideological, social or racial aggregate. But the real name of such a spirit is not <i>duty </i>but <i>fanaticism. </i>And there is a considerable difference between the two. Fanaticism may be
</p>
<br>
<p class="pageno">Page-135</p>
<hr>
<p class="para">defined as duty running away with itself; but what we are concerned with here is not the aberration of duty, but duty proper, self-poised.
</p><br>
<p class="para">
One might claim also on behalf of the doctrine of Rights that the right kind of a Right brings no harm: it is, as already stated, another name for liberty, for the privilege of living, and it includes the obligation to let live. One can do what one likes provided one does not infringe the equal right of others to do the same. The measure of one's liberty is equal to the measure of others' liberty.
</p><br>
<p class="para">
Here is the crux of the question. The dictum of utilitarian philosophers is a golden rule which is easy to formulate but not so to execute. For the line of demarcation between one's own rights and the equal rights of others is so indefinable and variable that a title suit is inevitable in each case. In asserting and establishing or even maintaining one's lights, there is always the possibility almost certainty—of encroaching upon other's rights.
</p><br>
<p class="para">
What is required therefore is not an external delimitation of frontiers between unit and unit, but an inner outlook and poise of character. And this can be cultivated and brought into action by learning to live by the sense of duty.
</p><br>
<p class="pageno">Page-136</p>
<hr>
<p class="para">Even the sense of duty, we have to admit, is not enough. For if it leads or is capable of leading into an aberration, we must have something else to check and control, some other higher and more potent principle. Indeed, the conceptions of both Duty and Right belong to the domain of mental ideas, although one is usually more aggressive and militant, <i>r</i>&#257;<i>jasic, </i>and the other tends to be more tolerant and considerate, <i>s</i>&#257;<i>ttwic: </i>neither can give an absolute certainty of poise, a clear guarantee of perfect harmony.
</p><br>
<p class="para">
Indian wisdom has found this other, a fairer term—a <i>tertium quid, </i>the mystic factor sought for by so many philosophers on so many counts. That is the very well-known, the very familiar term — Dharma. What is Dharma then? How does it accomplish the miracle which to others seems to have proved an impossibility ? Dharma is self-law, that is to say, the law of the Self; it is the rhythm and movement of our inner or inmost being, the spontaneous working out of our truth-conscious nature.
</p><br>
<p class="para">
We may perhaps view the three terms Right, Duty and Dharma as degrees of an ascending consciousness. Consciousness at its origin and in its primitive formulation is dominated by the principle of inertia, <i>tamas;</i>
</p><br>
<p class="pageno">Page-137</p>
<hr>
<p class="para">in that state things have mostly an undifferen-tiated collective existence, they helplessly move about acted upon by forces outside themselves. Growth and evolution bring about differentiation, specialisation, organization. And this means consciousness of oneself, of the distinct and separate existence of each and every one, in other words, self-assertion, the claim, the right of each individual unit to be itself, to become itself first and foremost. It is a necessary development, for it signifies the growth of self-condousness in the units out of a mass unconsciousness or semi-consciousness. It is the expression of <i>rajas, </i>the mode of dynamism, of strife and struggle; it is the corrective of <i>tamas.</i>
</p><br>
<p class="para">
In the earliest and most primitive society men lived totally in a mass conciousness. Their life was a blind obedience—obedience to the chief, the patriarch or <i>pater familias</i>—obedience to the laws and customs of the collectivity to which one belonged. It was called duty, it was called even <i>dharma, </i>but evidently on a lower level, in an inferior formulation; in reality it was more of the nature of the mechanical functioning of an automaton than the exercise of conscious will and deliberate choice, which is the very soul of the conception of duty.
</p><br>
<p class="pageno">Page-138</p>
<hr>
<p class="para">
The conception of Right had to appear in order to bring out the principle of individuality, of personal freedom and fulfilment. For, a true, healthy collectivity is the association and organization of free and self-determinate units. The growth of independent individuality naturally means, at first, clash and rivalry and a violently competitive society is the result. It is only at this stage that the conception of duty can fruitfully come in to develop in man and his society the mode of <i>sattwa, </i>which is that of light and wisdom, of toleration and harmony. Then only do men seek to mould society on the principle of co-ordination and co-operation.
</p><br>
<p class="para">
Still, the conception of duty cannot finally and definitively solve the problem. It cannot arrive at a perfect harmonisation of the conflicting claims of individual units; for duty, as I have already said, is a child of mental idealism and, although the mind can exercise some kind of control over the life-forces, it cannot altogether eliminate the seeds of conflict that lie embedded in the very nature of life. It is for this reason that there is an element of constraint in duty: it is, as the poet says, the 'stem daughter of the Voice of God.' One has to compel oneself, one has to force oneself on to carry out one's duty—there is a feeling somehow
</p><br>
<p class="pageno">Page-139</p>
<hr>
<p class="para">of its being a bitter pill. The cult of duty means <i>rajas </i>controlled and coerced by <i>sattwa, </i>not the transcendence <i>of rajas. </i>This leads us to the high and supreme conception of Dharma, which is a transcendence of the <i>gunas. </i>Dharma is not an ideal, a standard or a rule that one has to obey; it is the law of self-nature that one inevitably follows; it is easy, spontaneous, delightful. The path of duty is heroic, the path of Dharma is of the gods, godly. (Cf. Virabhava and Divyabhava of the Tantras.)
</p><br>
<p class="para">
The principle of Dharma then inculcates that each individual must, in order to act, find out the truth of his own being, his true soul and inmost consciousness: one must entirely and integrally merge oneself into that, be identified with it in such a manner that all acts and feelings and thoughts, in fact all movements—inner and outer—spontaneously and irrepressibly well out of that fount and origin. The individual souls being made of one truth-nature in its multiple modalities, when they live, move and have their being in its essential law and dynamism, there cannot but be absolute harmony and perfect synthesis between all the units, even as the sun and moon and stars which, as the Veda says, each following its specific orbit according to its specific nature
</p><br>
<p class="pageno">Page-140</p>
<hr>
<p class="para">
never collide or halt, <i>ne methate ne tasthatuh, </i>but weave out a faultless pattern of symphony.
</p><br>
<p class="para">
The future society of man is envisaged as something of like nature. When the mortal being will have found his immortal soul and divine self, then each will be able to give full and free expression to his self-nature, <i>swabh</i>&#257;<i>va; </i>then indeed even the utmost sweep of dynamism in each and all, <i>swadharma, </i>will not cause dash or conflict: on the contrary, each will increase the other and there will be a global increment and fulfilment, <i>parasparam bh</i>&#257;<i>va-yantah. </i>The division and conflict, the stress and strain that belong to the very nature of the inferior level of being and consciousness will then have been transcended. It is only then that a diviner humanity can be born to replace all the other moulds and types that never lead to anything final and absolutely satisfactory.
</p><br>
<p class="pageno">Page-141</p>
			
	</div>



</html>