Abstract
This paper proposes viewing all systems in four levels – worldview, doctrinal, institutional/architectural and experienced/lived reality.
We draw upon the axiomatic sources of Indian knowledge to bring this perspective, and explain how the design of systems in India has been enlightened by such perspective.
Such a perspective applies to all systems manmade and cosmos, as per Indian knowledge. By corollary, it is visible in the design of collective institutions such as state, social institutions, religious institutions etc.
We then draw a contrast with the modern institutions and the texts underlying them, and how these four levels are implicit or explicit.
We argue that taking cognizance of such a perspective results in a systematic design of texts underlying institutions, and the architecture of texts would be very different from the modern texts that lack such a perspective.
Its primary implications are in
a. the way futuristic knowledge generation and theorizing would happen, and how various fuzzy and
complex activities involving institution design for large societies can be made systematic.
b. the way these subjects can be brought into a more rigorous formal epistemic structure.
Introduction to the Concept
The Puruṣa Sūkta of Rig Veda is one of the best expositions of cosmic views, and it is said there -
“pādosya viṣvā bhūtāni tripādasya amRtaṃ divi”
Meaning, all the visible world is one fourth of the four-fold divine, the other three remain immortal. They are visible only to the trained eye.
In many ways, this applies to systems manmade and cosmic, in a simple cause-effect sense. The visible is but an effect, whose cause is visible only to the trained eye. This is a fact that is universally verifiable. It can be the workings of a scientific theory whose results are visible to the common man, it can be the efficiency of a machine whose workings are unknown to the user, it can be the social outcomes of a theory of state, it can also be the visible universe itself whose evolution and workings are unknown to a good part. What appears magic to the untrained eye, is yet something quite meaningful for the trained eye and only more meaningful for the trained hand that is working this “magic” to bear fruit to the ones experiencing the fruits.
Puruṣa of this Sūkta is the primal cosmic being, the personified representation of the cosmos. He is the performer of the grand cosmic sacrifice, and also the whole of the sacrifice itself.
Contrary to the view that Upanishad contains the “summary” of Vedic knowledge, it can also be argued that Upanishads contain elaborate commentary of what is summarily mentioned in the Samhita portions.
“Ekam Sat” (Rik 1.164.46) is one such brief statement of Samhita which has elaborate descriptions in the Upanishad. Another is the above Rik that mentions fourfold cosmic being. Its nature is found in the Mānḍūkya Upanishad, where the three immortal layers are enunciated along with the fourth and manifest.
Four Levels and Four Parts
The four parts of Puruṣa can be seen as correlating to the four parts of divine/cosmic being enunciated in Mānḍūkya Upanishad. The being that consumes gross, subtle, causal objects in three levels and remains immutable in fourth (eternal/composite).
Mānḍūkya Upanishad (verse 2) says
“sarvaṃ hyetad brahma, ayamātmā brahma, sothamātmā catuṣpāt”
Meaning, all that is existent, is Brahman. The self is Brahman too (thus micro is a reflection of macro).
And it is four-fold. The subsequent verses detail that the first part is Vaisvanara the enjoyer of gross objects, second is Taijasa the enjoyer of subtle objects, third is PrAjna the enjoyer of causal objects and fourth is the composite/eternal/absolute.
These four correspond to the manifest outcome (gross, lived experience), the how/mechanism/workings (subtle), the doctrinal/causal what and the fourth of macro perspective/eternal/existential reality.
The gross is the most manifest level that is experienced, seen with “naked eye”, in case of collective phenomena the “ground reality”. From this level of experience, the universe appears as it is to the naked eye, or “viṣvā bhūtāni”of Puruṣa Sūkta. The universal being at this level of experience is the vaiśvānara of Mānḍūkya. Thus, this is the ultimate outcome/effect whose cause lies in the others.
The subtle is the level of mechanism of how things are done and how they work. In the workings of any system, this is the layer of architecture/institutional structure. This is the cause of the manifest fourth layer, and it is caused by the workings of other two layers. In case of the cosmos, the laws of nature, the intelligence that causes the dynamics of cosmic action, in other words the mechanisms of setting cosmic order constitute this layer. Institutions work their magic by channeling the collective energies towards specific outcomes, favoring certain outcomes over others. These outcomes appear simply as results of actions of the acting entities/members, yet when one refers to the “system” it is this structure that one refers to implicitly.
The causal is the level of principle and purpose. In case of cosmos, the primal causal principle or the “purpose towards which the whole game is being played”, is the source of such doctrine. In any system, this corresponds to the doctrine underlying institution design. The primary principles which are meant to be served by the institutional structure, remain the purpose for which it is designed. Thus the causal/doctrine is the cause whose effect is the subtle/architecture.
The fourth is the level of existential reality. In cosmic sense this is the absolute. In any system, this is the worldview, an ontological statement of the nature of the essential reality. “It is because the essential reality of man is such, that he craves such things, thus to serve his collective purpose such an institution would be an ideal vehicle”- thus proceeds the thought process of an ideal system design.
The table below summarizes the four level view.
State, Constitution
The four level view is best demonstrated with the example of constitution and statecraft.
The laws, policies, executive actions instruments etc are in fact the manifest fourth leg of statecraft, outcomes of the exercise. What underlies these, is an institutional structure, an architecture of state that makes the various entities in the system operate in a certain way, with specific objectives and incentives motivating those actions.
This is the “invisible” third part of the system, which is not really something that is paid attention to by the user of the system or even a diligent participant in the functioning of the system, and is known only to a discerning participant in the design of the system.
This institutional structure determines which aspect of the system weighs more powerful in which aspect, which kind of policies can be enacted by it, what its strengths are and what its limitations are. In this sense, this is the cause whose effect is the manifest and experienced outcome of actual functioning of the system. In fact a good system is one where the institutional structure itself does not become overtly visible or felt, but the country functions because of it. The structure will be felt when its baggage or inefficiency shows, otherwise society is oblivious to it for the most part.
Underlying the institutional architecture is a doctrine, which acts as a set of ideals that the state aspires to realize. The institutional structure, policies, incentives all are directed towards realizing the ideals derived from the doctrine. For instance, equality and justice, welfare of society, promoting fraternity are all ideals that constitute part of the state doctrine.
The doctrine thus, is the second part of the system, the cause whose effect is an institutional structure.
Underlying doctrine is a worldview, from which a doctrine derives. The nature of man and world, purpose and goals of human life, means to their fulfillment, nature of collectivities etc constitute worldview. The state doctrine and goals are determined based on worldview. For instance, if goal of human life is fulfillment of potential and highest happiness, enabling humans towards that happiness becomes the goal
of state, a state doctrine. On the other hand if fulfillment of needs is defined as the enabler of happiness, then goal of state would be to help fulfill human needs – and the state becomes a welfare state. Thus worldview is the cause whose effect is the state doctrine. In cases where worldview is stated and established, there is a way to systematically derive the doctrine and change it with time, with respect to
a worldview. In cases where it is unstated, changing a doctrine would mean a full reset of system since there is no basis remaining for evolutionary change.
In the modern constitutions there is no clear layering of content into these. Worldview is mostly assumed and unstated. Doctrine is where modern constitutions begin. Whether it is “that all are created equal” of US constitution or the aspiration of equality fraternity etc in Indian constitution, the ideals are stated axiomatically.
This in itself may not concern civilizations that have seen revolutions to bring about change in ideals. But revolution itself is a civilian trauma, and the need for it is a fundamental failure of system in Indian view.
A society that is capable of evolving systems organically, by changing what is temporary and basing it on a substratum of unchanging principles of nature, would not treat ideals axiomatically but as temporal.
Ideals of state have changed over time with human evolution.
So a more scientific approach to this is to make an explicit statement of worldview, part of it being axiomatic (and derived systematically from axiomatic sources to ensure probity in the statement of worldview) and part of it derived from it and established as a translator for establishing doctrine.
From this, doctrine derives systematically, in a way it suits temporal requirements. Doctrine thus becomes refutable instead of axiomatic. State architecture or institutional structure derives from doctrine and that remains prescriptive, similar to modern constitutions. However, there needs to be refutability in it – to show how an institutional structure realizes the doctrine and how change will be prompted by non-
realization.
Thus we have ontological, normative, prescriptive content in the text of statecraft, and not limited to prescriptive content. It is not necessary that all the types of content are in the same document either. But the classification needs to be in a way that consistency and completeness are not violated. Worldview is visible, at the level of lived reality, through the doctrine and institutions. For instance if man is an
economic being in a worldview, the entire system is designed in an economy-centric way. If purpose of life is highest happiness in a worldview, the entire system is designed to enable what man seeks without judging or measuring him in economic terms.
In traditional Indian scheme, the worldview and part of doctrine are found in dharma śāstra (Manu Yājnavalkya Parāśara Devala etc). Institution design is only in principle dealt in dharma śāstra. Part of doctrine and institutional structure, instruments of state etc are visible extensively in artha śāstra (Kautilya’s Artha śāstra, Nīti Sūtras, Sukra Nīti Sāra etc). It can be seen by studying them together, that
artha śāstra is giving instruments to fulfill the goals laid down in the dharma śāstra. After all, “ dharmasya mūlaṃ arthaḥ” or artha is the means to fulfill dharma.
Such an architecture brings permanence to a grand design, where structures remain temporal and new ones continuously emerge to replace older ones, without needing revolutions for such replacement. That change happens is not a cliché but has to be visible in the way a system is designed. Taking explicit cognizance of this four level view helps us design systems where change is organically embraced at all
levels. To specify a worldview means that if that layer changes, all the other layers will change to adapt to it. Change in doctrine means there is no change in worldview, and the two lower layers will change. If doctrine remains the same and institutional structure is unable to keep up to realize it, it means there needs to be a more current design and it will mean change at two levels by keeping two unchanged. The
fourth or lived experience of it always changes, and is the ultimate test for the success of the system.
Applicability
It may appear that the Puruṣa Sūkta mantra is indicating the four parts of divine and invisible, and that in case of state all four are manmade. However it needs to be understood that these are four levels of any system – the cosmos too. Divine or otherwise, the “institutional structure” of the universe is explained in
the śRti. This may or may not be subscribed to in a particular worldview, but in the Astika scheme this remains the cause whose effect is lived reality and experience of beings. Principle of action, yajna, transcendence, guna, are all constructs that govern the experiences/lived reality.
What becomes doctrine is the dynamics of creation of world, the intelligence principle behind it.
Viṣṇu is said to have created three worlds and established “dharma” or the order of functioning. This constitutes doctrine.
Worldview as known to humans is darsana. As known to divine, is only known to human in little bits.
It is said “yathā pinḍe tathā brahmāṇḍe”, what is applicable at macro is also applicable to micro. This is also the basic principle that yoga and spiritual philosophies base themselves on. It is not limited to seeing and realizing the entire universe manifested in individual being as a microcosm, it also very much applies
to how human collectivities operate by the same principles of nature that are found in the seeds of creation. The collective being, social at one level is cosmic at another. This is also why the divine who expounds Herself in VāgāmbhRṇī sūkta, revealing Herself as manifest in all the devatas like Indra and Vasu-s, also calls Herself the social collective whole - Rāśṭrī.
Table below summarizes the four level view of state and its root texts
Society
In India, society has a matrix of institutions (discussed in the paper Scope of Smriti and Nature of Dharmic State) that are stratified and non-hierarchical, and orthogonal to the hierarchical institutions of state.
They are designed very much by these four levels. In the world view layer come the permanent nature of world and man, macranthropy (cosmos as a personified divine), varna dharmas (which are common to all forms and beings not just humans) etc. They are codified in the axiomatic sources and sanātana/eternal layers of dharma śāstras.
At the doctrine level there are dharma’s operating layers including temporal/yuga dharma, primary principles of life, basic tenets of sampradāyas. Doctrine derived from worldview of triguna and Ananda as purpose of life, so that institutional structure is designed to be a vehicle for its fulfillment.
At the architectural level the various institutions like deśa, jāti, vṛtti, ecosystem of sampradāyas are visible, which operated to provide cohesion and acted as vehicles for fulfillment of human purposes and realized the doctrines.
The lived reality is the outcome of these, which reflected in a high civilization, prosperity, perfection, lofty human conduct, integration motifs working across Bharata. While the destruction of these institutions over centuries under external attacks was a matter of time, it is not the vitality of institutions in the long term but the relevance of their principles for the future that matters, so that newer institutional structures
can be designed.
Below is the table summarizing the four levels in context of institutions of social collective.
Religion
Religion and spiritual philosophy is a sphere where the four level view shows marked difference, and how evolution is enabled or preempted through institutional structure, as a result of the worldview adopted.
The table below summarizes how the manifestation happened from a worldview to lived reality in dharmic and abrahamist spheres. A lot of this is known reality and hardly needs argument, so it is stated in the most brief way possible primarily to indicate the manifestation level and causation through the levels rather than to indicate the good/bad. There is definitely a bias visible in the presentation, in favor of better articulated knowledge over a faith system, in favor of one that has a stratification between ontological, normative and prescriptive forms of texts.
Conclusion
To conclude, taking cognizance of this enables design of lasting institutions that have the capability to evolve and be replaced organically in a non-violent and inexpensive way. The substratum of a permanent worldview which can be rearticulated in an effective way to suit times, enables revision of doctrines and revision of doctrines means scope for rearchitecture without needing violent and costly revolutions or
resets of civilization. The modern world is now at a stage where it can start contemplating on such possibilities, given the recent tryst with enlightenment ideals and having achieved certain level of civilizational maturity. This possibility would not have been a serious matter to think of in the feudal or slave age, given the maturity levels of institution design and their alignment with higher human purposes.
Today it is a possibility, to evolve such a four-level knowledge structure, and align design of future collective institutions based on those. If the eternal wisdom of India is to prevail in this matter, this possibility would become a reality.
Texts and References
1. Puruṣa sūkta, Rigveda
2. Viṣṇu sūkta, Rigveda
3. Mānḍūkya Upanishad
4. VāgāmbhRṇī sūkta, Rigveda
5. (Book) Hindu view of Christianity and Islam by Ram Swarup 1992
6. (Paper) Scope of Smriti and Nature of Dharmic State, Shankara Bharadwaj Khandavalli 2017
7. Dharma śāstra-s (Manu, Yājnavalkya), Dharma Sūtras (Apastamba, Baudhāyana)
8. Artha śāstra-s – Kautilīya Artha śāstra, Nīti Sūtras, Sukra Nīti Sāra
