by Swami Krishnananda
Life, ancient as well as modern, is generally calculated and assessed in the light of what we regard as civilisation and culture. We usually, and often, speak of India's civilisation as highly advanced, and its culture as superb in every way. But a cultural or sociological study of history is not the proper way of getting a little deeper into the basic impulses that make culture the essential value of life. Why should anyone be cultured? Unless this question is answered, it is difficult to say what culture is. It is another way of asking, "Why should anyone be good?" We are very fond of saying that we have to be civilised, cultured and good, but have we found time to think of what consequences would devolve in our lives in the absence of this value?
A highly comfortable life of physical satisfaction and social security, with friendliness among the constituents of a society in the manner it is interpreted at any given moment of time, may be regarded as a highlight of civilisation and culture. But we speak of cultures and civilisations, and accept the presence of a multitude of these, implying thereby a simultaneous acceptance of the validity of these multiplicities, and meaning thereby that every culture is relevant to that particular circumstance of society which upholds it as its ideal. It does not mean that the whole of humanity has one culture, one civilisation, one way of thinking. Even the way of giving a friendly greeting differs from place to place, what to talk of other things.
Hence, when we speak of an ethical, moral or cultural society, we oftentimes speak tongue-in-cheek, not being able to assess the basic foundations of these efflorescences which appear outwardly as necessities in the form of culture, civilisation. A comfortable, happy life need not necessarily be a civilised life. Who can say that horses or elephants are not happy? Each group has its own standards of judging happiness, satisfaction, and even security. Animals in the jungle have a satisfaction of their own which is commensurate with the type of understanding with which they are endowed in the state of their evolution. Thus, the judgement of culture and civilisation also has something to say in regard to the stage of evolution.
There are various types of people in the world. Anthro-pologists generally classify humanity into races. This is only a broad classification of human beings, and it does not mean that we have given a clear-cut idea of the varieties of the outlooks of people. It is a peculiar classification based on the physiognomy or bone structure, and the appearance of the face—the nose, particularly. This kind of anthropological classification is not the same as a cultural classification. The anthropological evaluation, if it is applied to people in India, will not find one kind or one set of people throughout the country. There is a geographical impact upon the structure of the body, and many other factors which differentiate the way or conduct of the day-to-day life of people.
Why go so far? In India there are very obvious and interesting differences even in religious practice, as between the South and the North, for instance. In a state such as Kerala, it would be a horror for a person to enter a holy temple wearing a shirt—and much worse, a turban. It is not only irreligious, it is unthinkable, horrid behaviour to put on a coat and worship a holy deity in a temple. But if we go to a temple such as Kedarnath, we will find the pujari wearing a turban and a coat, and it is not regarded as unholy or irreligious. Now, why should this peculiar distinction be made in the conduct of a person—whether it is religious or otherwise—from place to place? It differs not merely from place to place, but from circumstance to circumstance. Perhaps this particular example that I gave has some connection with the circumstance of living—the climatic conditions particularly, and so on.
The dharma of a particular individual or a group of people is the culture, to mention it in a broad outline. The necessity of a person or the need of a group of people under a given set of circumstances, in the light of an ideal that they hold as their religious deity, may be regarded as the determining factor in the expression of culture or civilisation.
In India we have various linguistic states. In one way, we may say each state has its own culture—though not in essence, at least in details. In essence, we have one single culture from Kanyakumari to the Himalayas, which is why we always speak of Bharatiya samskriti, Indian culture; but in minute details, we differ. Hence, when we speak of culture or civilisation, we have to take it in generality as well as in particularity.
Sometimes differences arise among people due to their behaviour, which may appear to be perfectly recognised and valid from their own point of view—from the standpoint of their own culture and civilisation—but may be odd in another atmosphere. Our dress in India is an incoherent cynosure in a country like Britain, for instance; and to us, British or European dress looks something quite different from the way in which we would like to dress ourselves. Now, does dress make a culture, does language make a culture, or does the way of worshipping of God make a culture? What is culture?
If we go threadbare into this problem of culture and civilisation, we will find that it is not one, two or three things, but it is everything that acts as the warp and woof in this fabric of one's life, and a total adjustability of the human group may perhaps be called for in the expression of a culture. When a person speaks sweetly, behaves politely, and expresses a generous feeling of charitableness, one feels that the person is cultured or civilised. We generally speak of a person as cultured when there is a charitable expression on the part of that person in regard to others in feeling, in words, and in outward conduct. But while we may regard this standard of judgement of culture and civilisation as something very beautiful, almost approximating perfection, we have to go a little deeper into the causes that motivate the behaviour of a person in this manner.
Why should one be impelled to speak sweetly to another? Though we may accept that speaking sweetly is a part of cultured behaviour, what is it that prompts a person to speak sweetly to another person? If it is selfishness, exploitation—to utilise that person in some manner by hooking that individual—then sweet speaking would not be a part of culture. It would be a dramatic, deceptive attitude, and we cannot regard sweet speech as a part of culture. Therefore, merely speaking sweetly is not a part of culture; there is something else behind it. Even a charitable act cannot be called culture unless there is some living force behind it, because we may express a gesture of charity with a highly selfish motive. Outward actions can bear the garb of holiness, intense culture, piety and civilisation, but they may have a peculiar axe to grind, which the individual alone will know. Thus, culture is not any kind of external gesture—neither dress, nor even language.
Sometimes people base their culture on their religion, their scriptures. There are scripture-oriented religions whose adherents interpret everything in their lives from the point of view of that particular sacred text. If something is not mentioned in that text, it would not be a holy attitude. The moment they discover a statement in the text concerning a particular behaviour, it becomes sanctioned. So, the book becomes the guide. These are some of the religions we have in the world. But there are other religions which are prophet oriented. They may have no books, but they have a leader, and whatever that person says is valid and final. There is a final validity of a particular conduct, whether it receives its inspiration from a prophet or a book, and this final interpretation of the validity of the behaviour of a person or a group of people makes it impossible for mankind to have one culture and one civilisation, because it does not appear that we have only one book as our guide or only one man as our leader. Sections of people have different leaders—religious, political, and social—and different texts are regarded as holy in their own parlance.
So, how do we come to know whether a person is cultured or civilised? Civilised nations today are those who have up-to-date gadgets of physical amenities. From the point of view of the interpretation of culture as possession of the highest material instruments of action, India cannot be regarded as highly cultured because there are other countries that are more technologically advanced. If technological advancement is the sign of culture and civilisation, India lags behind. But would we say that culture is technological advancement? Certainly not! Nobody would say 'yes' to this, because something lurks within us and tells us that whatever be the might and force of the technology that we have in our hands, it may not be the criterion of our culture. We may be boorish in our outlook, notwithstanding the fact that we possess immense material wealth and tremendous technological power.
Also, wealth cannot be regarded as a sign of culture. An utterly poor person who has not even a morsel to eat may be highly cultured, and the wealthiest man may not be so. Therefore, when we study the philosophy and psychology of culture and civilisation we are in deep waters, and we would not be able to receive an immediate answer to the standard by which we can recognise the presence of culture or civilisation. It is certainly not any kind of external possession, nor does it appear simply an outward behaviour, because political tact sometimes appears to be highly cultured behaviour while it is only diplomacy, which may suddenly become a turncoat and assume a different colour. Therefore, diplomacy is not culture.