Original Position-2: Application

How do we apply this main doctrine (A=B) of Advaita to the everyday transactional domain? 

In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣhad (BU 3.4.1-2 and 3.5.1) this principle is worded as: "एषा त आत्मा सर्वान्तरः (This is your Self that is within all)”; while in Īsha Upaniṣhad it is expressed as: “Who sees everything in his Self & his Self in everything, by that he feels no alienation” (IU-6); ““The Knower in whose Self all beings are united, what delusion, what grief is there for him when he sees this unity” (IU-7).

In Bhagavadgītā the doctrine appears as samatva (equanimity) in many verses. For example, BG 13.27 says:

“He sees, who sees the Supreme Lord, existing equally in all beings, deathless in the dying.”

The next verse (BG 13.28) says: “Since seeing the Lord equally existent everywhere, he injures not Self by self, and so goes to the highest goal.” 

This equable state described in BG 13.27-28 and in many other BG verses retains theist coloring and closely connects with the principle of reciprocity – the so called golden rule advocated by the literature and scriptures of almost all religions:

For example, in Mahābhārata:

(a) “For this reason, one should live with restrained soul, giving attention to virtue most. One should also behave towards all creatures as he should towards himself.” (Book XII; section CLXVII; para 3, lines 8-10).

(b) “That man who regards all creatures as his own self and behaves towards them as towards his own self, laying aside the rod of chastisement and completely subjugating his wrath, succeeds in attaining to happiness. The very deities, who are desirous of a fixed abode, become stupefied in ascertaining the track of that person who constitutes himself the soul of all creatures and looks upon them all as his own self, for such a person leaves no track behind. One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This is in brief, is the rule of Righteousness.” (Book XIII, section CXIII, para 2, lines 7-13).

Another example in Padma Purāṇa (Srishti 19.335) states: 

"श्रूयतां धर्मसर्वस्वं श्रुत्वा चाप्यवधार्यताम्; आत्मनः प्रतिकूलानि परेषां न समाचरेत्"

(If the entire “Dharma” can be said in a few words, then it is - that which is unfavorable to us, do not do that to others).

If we take equanimous state of mind in BG 13.27-28 as the manifestation of A=B, do we find any thing that goes beyond the theistic coloring therein and enable the role reversal implicit in the principle of reciprocity?

In a more radical position, BG 5.18 dramatically declares:

“The knowers of the Self look with an equal eye on a Brahmana endowed with learning and humility, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and a pariah.”

This is the position of “equality” that sees the common ground beyond the mundane living experience. True, the position of BG 13.28 etc. sees God everywhere (in living beings as well as non-living things), and in that sense it is more general and comprehensive in its ambit. Still, BG 5.18 is more specific in going beyond the religious dogma of seeing the pious Brāhmaṇa and the Pariah as the respective top and bottom of the social pecking order that is based on the birth. In fact it radically rejects birth and lineage as the basis of hierarchy by bringing ‘dog’ and ‘elephant’ in the discourse. However, why cannot BG consider the virtuosity of the pious Brāhmaṇa and place him at the top of the social pecking order? – That is because spiritual equanimity does not recognize any kind of hierarchy; it transcends hierarchies. 

BG elsewhere in few places gives the impression that it is talking about traditional Varṇāshrama, which is based on the hereditary position defined by the birth. This may be true, simply because BG is not a reformist text but a syncretic text. It gives concession to those who promote hereditary Varṇāshrama without promoting its pecking order. However, verses after verses BG sings paeans of samatva – the equality that goes against the traditional class hierarchy. The E6 criterion particularly, regarding ‘emphasis’ demands that samatva, the equanimity that sees the inner equality of all beings, should be considered as the main theme of BG along with the other important theme - selfless work without cravings for personal gains (niṣhkāma karma, निष्काम कर्म).

The argument that samatva (समत्व) – the inner equality of life as seen by the equanimous mind - is an ideal only to be subjectively realized by an individual in isolation but is not applicable to the domain of empirical transactions otherwise, does not hold good. The pursuit of this ideal should not be fraught with contradiction where the notion of hereditary class is first built up and firmed up all through the active life and then sought to be dismantled as a precondition for realizing the ideal. This is not to suggest that formation of classes is an unnatural process that always needs to be prohibited; however the simple criterion of guṇa-karma (गुण-कर्म) without the notion of hierarchy and heredity can be the basis of classes rather than the birth. This simple corrective can be easily applied while interpreting the BG verses like BG 3.35, 4.13 etc. and also while interpreting the famous Jābāla (जाबाल) story (CU 4.4.1-5). In such an interpretation, svadharma (स्वधर्म) is svabhāva (स्वभाव) (aptitude, nature) (BG 3.35), or aptitudinal work, natural course of action (BG 18.47) synonymous with sahaja-karma (सहज-कर्म) (BG 18.48); also, guṇa-karma is aptitudinal vocation or natural behavior (BG 4.13), pāpa-yonayaḥ (पापयोनयः) (BG 9.32) are delinked from the classification of strī-shūdra-vaishya (स्त्री-शूद्र-वैश्य), and then as a consequence BG 18.41 leads to the natural distribution of karma (कर्म) in line with BG 4.13. Further such a realignment inverts the interpretation of Jābāla story: truthfulness becomes the criterion of being Brāhmaṇa rather than being Brāhmaṇa becoming the basis of truthfulness.

If the principles of “equanimous equality”, “reflective reciprocity”, and “freedom of conscionable action” are empirical connectives of A=B, is it possible to expand on this theme and go beyond the subjective application of these principles? More specifically, can we conceptualize a social organization wherein reciprocity, equality, and freedom are embedded in its structure? What is the starting point or the ‘original position’ for constructing such a social-political structure? 

Rather than reinventing the wheel, we will check the compatibility of a contemporary theory of social justice with A=B so as to modify or extend it wherever required. Our purpose here is to see if we can find systems which are in better conformance with A=B than the old “hereditary, hierarchical, and heliocentric (monarchical)” (3-H) social structures which were based on secondary scriptures. We will not claim that our choice of alternative(s) is the best, or that it is the only choice available to us.