In a recent
blog entry, following up on a discussion on gay rights, Advaitadas commented on the famous preamble to the United States
Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
His gripes with this statement, a statement that on face value would seem self-evident and foundational to our society, are manifold. Some of the perspectives in the review are regrettably rather poorly thought out.
Conditioned Fathers of Nation
The first objection of the rebuttal, straight out of a text-book as it were, reads as follows:
"Actually, this is not an authoritative statement in principle because those who drafted this constitution are of course conditioned souls, who are prone to mistakes, inattentiveness, deceit and imperfect senses."
In the authors' view, it seems evident that "conditioned souls" are unable to produce anything factually authoritative owing to their blundersome nature. Even if the aeroplane flies, even if our understanding of the laws of physics and principles of engineering add up to the expected result, it is important to understand that the aeroplane flying on the sky is unauthorized. Even with the imposters at flight control declaring he's authorized for a take-off.
The Perfect Verdicts
Wishing to reach certain knowledge, the author — like millions of his Hindu bretheren — turns to his infallible scriptures, the
shastra.
"Comparing this statement with the verdicts of shastra was amusing, because it turned out to be not-so self-evident at all."
It should be interesting to create a society modeled on the basis of the ancient dharma-shastras — take, for example, the famous
Manu-smriti. Never mind the fact that they were compiled by people whose credentials are wholly unknown to us, and at times long gone, adherents commonly hold them to be timeless, authoritative and definite.
Since the said genre of scriptures is so obviously outdated, being written for a wholly different social context, we are essentially left with nothing "authorized" for the contemporary situation, nothing with a broader range of information, anyway. Of course, there is no scarcity of reformers who claim to have understood the timeless message and its necessary contemporary application. Now, who authorized and de-conditioned them? Jim Jones, have company.
Might it, therefore, be wiser to settle for general values that seek to give everyone equal
opportunities (note emphasis) for adhering to a belief or disbelief of their choice, giving them the freedom of choice for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in their way of choice as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights. I'd say that looks like a pretty damn good deal, on paper anyway.
The prospect of an "authorized system of governance" sends shrills down my spine. Would you rather have a Vedic king and a forced caste system, a Japanese Solar Emperor with hordes of Samurai troops, pharaoh Ved-anxt-amun the heir of Osiris and prince of the underworlds, or Mullah al Taleban with the sword of Allah? They are all authorized by their own conflicting heritages.
All Men are Created Equal
This statement was the unjustified object of massive nit-picking. The arguments are two-fold, one discussing the aspect of creation, other the concept of equality.
1. No one was ever created. ... The jiva is beginningless and thus never created.
Now, it is rather unlikely that the founders of the United States were bent on saying that all units of the Hindu soul were created, equal or otherwise. After all, it does clearly say that
"all men are created equal". In the Puranic theory, the
creation of men occurs at a stage of creation called
visarga, following the primary elemental creation (
sarga).
2. No one is equal, created or otherwise.
I would argue that the uncreated could well be equal. However, to the equal — what does the word
equal imply in the statement under scrutiny? Does it mean that everyone earns the same amount of money, is as beautiful, intelligent and physically fit as everyone else? It seems, again, rather unlikely that this is what the founding fathers had in mind.
Created equal then means
created to be given equal opportunity.
Now, the meaning of
giving equal opportunity is obviously not as clear-cut when we speak of diverse individuals, rather than a mass of people. We're skating again on this dreaded arena of subjectivity. Where have gone all those beautiful truths, the absolute revelation endowing us with the right to abstain from progressive thought?
"Regarding equality on the material level, no Barack Obama is going to turn each homeless bum in Harlem into a Beverly Hillbilly. Inequality is intrinsic. Even communism failed to bring equality to even a single nation."
And exactly so. Therefore, rather than imposing a single standard — of absolute equality, or any other absolute for that matter — we need to face the problem of giving equal opportunities for diverse men to pursue life, liberty and happiness in their desired way. Let a hundred flowers blossom, behold the garden's beauty in its diversity, every flower given a chance to prosper in its own nature.
The inalienable rights, basis for the concept of
equal opportunity, are of course outlined in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As evident, the basis of equal opportunity is a relative concept intrinsically tied with our times, due to evolve with the progress of humanity. Perhaps Advaitadas can next tackle the unauthorized Declaration of Human Rights for us.
Wars, Abortion and Right for Life
That someone should contend
inalienable right for life is beyond me.
"What about the lives that were lost in all the US interventionalist wars, and that are lost now since abortion was legalized?
That there are shortcomings in the observance of the ideals is hardly surprising. No doubt, a good political analyst would write a book on the intended consequences of the U.S. foreign policy in terms of saving and improving life.
Abortion was, in fact, legal when the Declaration of Independence was drafted in 1776. Laws against abortion began to appear in mid-1800s and became prevalent after the turn of the century. The re-legalization of abortion is then hardly in contrast with the intentions of the statement in question.
The ethical justifiability of abortion, and at its root the debate on "what makes a person and when", are more complex issues than a few lines would cover. Is semen person? Is the freshly fertilized embryo a person? And moreover, when examining religious arguments on when a person is present, we must
look at the scriptures as a whole and ask some pertinent questions.
"The soul is made to enter into the womb of a woman through the particle of male semen." (BhP. 3.31.1) "On the first night, the sperm and ovum mix, and on the fifth night the mixture ferments into a bubble. On the tenth night it develops into a form like a plum, and after that, it gradually turns into a lump of flesh or an egg, as the case may be." (BhP. 3.31.2)
Now, we know that in the Puranic theory there are souls in plants and animals as well. The killing of plants in particular is sanctioned. Now, would it be more wrong to kill a bubble of fermented mixture or a tender daffodil? Would you spare an old oak tree or a form like a plum? According to the text, the first sensations occur during the embryo's fifth month. 90% of abortions take place within the first 12 weeks.
"Can the US government insure or protect Life? Hardly. 'For those who are born, death is sure.' (Bhagavad Gita 2.27)"
It's not that the life insurance company is there to protect you from dying either, you know. The idea here is to give all men an equal right for life while it lasts, and seek to protect its unnatural termination by diverse means.
Absolute and Relative Liberty
With liberty, we are again contrasting the concepts of absolute and relative liberty. Advaitadas tackles the absolute:
"Freedom is an illusion. In this world we serve our families (by having to maintain them), governments (by paying taxes) and our senses. In the spiritual world we serve Krishna, but there is no freedom anyway anywhere."
There is (bhaktas close your ears) a twilight zone between the material and spiritual worlds, inhabited by mayavadi demons, rascal scientists and other humbugsters, all merged into one homogeneous blob of liberated consciousness free from mayas of all flavor.
The concept of liberty should be understood as follows: All men have an inalienable right to pursue their lives as they see best, within the boundaries of law, and no-one has a right to restrict this without consent.
Families and other obligation-demanding social groups are generally founded on consentual agreement of cooperation for the attainment of a greater good. Otherwise, the concept of liberty is seen in effect for example as the rights for free speech and fair trial, which I'm sure we all appreciate.
Pursuit of Happiness
The final aspect, almost as if it were the factor giving a meaning for the rest, is an inalienable right to pursue happiness. Regrettably, the author seems to find no happiness in the world.
"Any enjoyment which arises from the touches of the senses are just sources of misery. They have a beginning and an end and thus a wise men does not rejoice in them." (Bhagavad Gita 5.22) 'This world is miserable and temporary.' (Bhagavad Gita 8.15) As the Christian founders of the American state must have known from the Bible, this is the valley of the tears.."
The concept of happiness does not, of course, entail only pleasures of the senses. For example, for Advaitadas pursuit of happiness would mean having a cozy small home, enough money to support himself, and peace to chant and meditate as he wishes. To others, there may be a wide array of sensual, intellectual, musical or political ventures equally meaningful.
If we were to not grant diverse individuals their inalienable rights for pursuing happiness, only the mainstream happiness would survive, and I very much doubt Advaita's flavor would survive. Whether or not each individual quest for happiness meets its end, and whether an unrelated theology favors it or not, everyone has a right to pursue their ideals.
Absolute and Accommodating Solutions
There are two approaches to managing the human situation, the
absolute and the
accommodating.
The absolute approach seeks the implementation of an infallible, unchanging truth, and with its establishment the coeffective elimination of lesser, relative solutions. Absolute truth evidently depends on the presence of an absolute truth-maker and truth-affirmer, and in theistic models where a deity is the ultimate affirmer, the presence of an absolute mediator. The utopian house of cards falls with the presence of asymmetric cards, the non-absolute and conditioned individuals, the subjects of a
totalitarian regime.
The accommodating approach seeks to facilitate, rather than to control and manipulate, the diverse approaches to life and happiness in a manner that provides for smooth co-existence. Unlike the absolute, the accommodating is ever-evolving and never final, a relative solution tied with its times, never a final truth unto itself and for its own sake. While the absolute leaves no room for improvement by its very nature, the accommodating takes pride in its incompleteness, seeking perfection instead of declaring its presence.
Don't go looking for a solution you can worship. Look for a solution that works.
