Dr. K S Radhakrishnan

Dr. K S Radhakrishnan (formerly Vice-Chancellor of Sri Sankaracharya University and Chairman, Kerala Public Service Commission) is a learned scholar who has been earnestly trying to revive the ancient knowledge in Indian culture. He worked as a lecturer early in his life and now lives an eloquent advocate of social and cultural causes.

Fear in Freedom

Freedom is one of the necessary preconditions for creativity. A society can be creative, only if it enjoys freedom; same is the case with individuals too. A free person and a free society should be able to actualize whatever remains in potential form. So, the best form of management is exploring the creativity of one and all in that organization. Here, both the organization and all the members of that organization should be free. An organization consisting of free members alone is a free organization; only such an organization turns creative in management, in political affairs, in social affairs and even in industrial development. A developed society in its real form is a society that enjoys freedom, in the sense that it is able to exercise self-regulation.  A self-regulated society alone will be able to effect changes in a creative form in the context in which it exists. Take for example the case of management: we want to get the best product, the best result etc. but the best can be produced only if all the members of that organization, right from the last grade to the Managing Director are exercising their free will. The exercise of free will means that a person in that organization must be able to concentrate, must be able to organize and focus his attention on the goals directed by that organization. Then only an individual can be creative and only a creative individual is able to contribute something effective and valuable to that organization. What happens now days is that we are fixing targets to be achieved. In the process of achieving a target, the individual is bound by issues other than the target because if he is not able to achieve the target, he will be thrown away from that organization. This naturally generates fear. A person who is overpowered by fear can never be a free man. Man must necessarily be free from all sorts of fears including fear of God. The very concept of fear of God has been the contribution of the Jewish tradition. When Jesus introduced His Gospel, He really changed this position and He identified with those persons, who were then treated inferior. Such an identification give those persons, a sense of freedom because they get rid of the fear that has already been created by a philosophical position which says that God is something different from man and man cannot attain the position of God. ¬¬Jesus has made it clear that if a person is able to experience God he should also be able to establish His kingdom on earth. Jesus explains that when one experiences heaven on earth he gets freedom from all the fears that have been created by distinct forces.  This philosophy is never different from right management principles. A management expert must be able to guide others to exercise their free will in tune with the objectives of the organization. When an individual gets tuned to this style, he really turns a contribution to the whole organization. This is what effective management means. But now-a-days what happens is that we are separating the management tactics from the employees; such a separation creates fear in the minds of employees. A person who is afraid of his superiors may not be able to extract the good aspects of his own potentiality. So, in every sense, the management has to make everyone in that organization, free.  If a teacher can make a student free from fear of a subject, quite sure that such student must be able to produce the maximum to the subject as well as to the society. (Contd.) 

By Dr. K S Radhakrishnan on 03-07-2012

Toolsof Communication

Everyone accepts a fact that we are living in a multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-formal world where plurality is a reality. There are cultural plurality, religious plurality, political plurality, economic plurality and even plurality in food, dress habits etc. The question that arises is how it is possible to get an effective means of communication in a pluralistic world. Is no meaning in saying that a monolithic or a uniform world is better than a pluralistic world because nature never provides a uniform world or a monolithic world; there are differences and diversities. All such differences and diversities mean proper means of communication. How is it possible to make communication effective? The modern philosophical trend in philosophy, literature and media etc. have got a very firm opinion that  communication is something that is different from what it is intended by the author. The text here is a different entity and the author has no role to play in the text or the intention of the author need not be considered as a proper element in communication, whatever be the intention of the author, the intention that has been explained explicitly or implicitly there in the text. We, the readers or the hearers have got full freedom to understand it in a way which is in tune with our context. It is well and good that if a particular term has been written by a particular author, has a specific meaning. This theory gives us the right that it can be understood in a different meaning. Suppose a term ‘mother’ has been used to explain the lady who has given birth to me, the meaning can be interpreted as mother-in-law, who is the mother of my wife. So, mother cannot be mother-in-law. That is a very serious aspect. But they simply says that any term be interpreted in any manner. This   results in anarchy in the very experience of communication.  In an anarchical state where there is no communication at all, there must be some specific order communication and communication can be easy only we are able to establish some common elements between ‘I’ and ‘you’. Where there are no common elements, there is no communication. The post-modern trend says that there is similarity but nothing common between them; this makes communication ineffective or it creates chaos in the field of communication. Hence, what makes us more difficult is that the other remains as a mysterious entity as far as I am concerned. Such a trend in philosophical life as well as in cultural life really creates a serious problem. In his context it is essential to look into all possibilities to overcome this crisis and establish a dialogue between ‘I’ and ‘You’. Take for example the inter-religious dialogues. The Western Christianity developed based on a trend given by the Greek philosophers especially by the Aristotelian logic.  Thomas Aquinas was instrumental to make it possible to adopt the Aristotelian logic in Christianity through his theology. He said that the Aristotelian logic is enough to incorporate Christ experience. But it is a proven fact that one cannot be able to understand Christ with the tool provided by the Greek forefathers, especially Aristotle. Hence, we have to find out a new tool. When we make a comparison between Hinduism and Christianity, there is the question, ‘should we follow the tool as developed by either Hinduism or Christianity’. With Hindu tools, your assessment of Christianity need not be correct and vice versa. So, whenever we are in need of an effective communication system, we have to develop a new epistemology which is able enough to keep up identity at every level. Such a logical identity can be developed by the Advaitic System of logic. Advaitic System says that differences are not deficiencies but are the marks of nature; hence, we can be sure of the fact that there are diversified objects and all such diversified objects have something in common and it is that common element which helps us to make communication, more easy and possible. If we are not able to realize and recognize that common element then it is not possible to establish a meaningful dialogue in a pluralistic world.  

By Dr. K S Radhakrishnan on 19-06-2012

Levels of Communication

Richard Rorti and other American writers who were too much conscious of resolving the riddle between body and mind have finally done it by creating a man who is free from mind – the mindless man, a man who is untouched by the problems of the mind. Such types of divisions can be seen in the Western philosophical trend, I mean the Greek philosophical trends. But this issue has been resolved in a brilliant manner by Jesus, when he said that there is heaven in you and there is heaven in me. Heaven is best common entity. There is the body in you and body in me; hence ‘you’ and ‘me’ need bread. Where I am more than the body, I am in need of something more than bread. This concept of the finer forms of human experience in life that begins with the sense organs, travels through the mind and finally reaches a state of experience which can never be explained either by words or even approached by mind. Everyone must be able to experience it. Such a state of experience has been termed as Ananda. Si it begins at Annam Brahma. Annam means the body, the matter – man is a matter. This fact can never be questioned. For ex. suppose you say that it is with wood that the table has been made. That is true; but if you ponder over the question and ask yourself ‘what you by wood?’ then immediately you will get the answer that it is specific unification of innumerable number of molecules in a very peculiar manner and the unification have been made by a set of rules and regulations. The table made out of wood is true at one level of our experience, and at the other level as the physicist says it is a peculiar arrangement of molecules also must be true. Here you agree with the fact that it is both molecules and wood.  Quite similar is the question ‘who am I’? Nobody can deny that there is a material entity in human beings. This truth cannot be ignored or deleted from the sphere of our experience. The body gets in touch with other material entities of the world. Whenever my body contacts with other material entities of the world there is a type of identity between the body and the material world. That is there. Here, you can also say that I am something more than the matter. There we have life – pranan. There are certain entities that come from the finer forms of matter. Life must be in the finer forms of matter. This vision is not new to the Indian Schools of thought, especially the Advaita System. We read in the Upanishads, ‘Who are You?’ ‘I am matter, then more than that I am life’. That life element can be seen in me and the unicellular mechanism in the world can never be differentiated. There is perfect identity in the life elements in me and that in the unicellular organism which can be termed as a microbe. It is impossible to find out that microbe through naked eyes, but with the help of certain equipments one must be able to detect it. But that life element which can be seen in that microbe in you and me is identical (not, are identical). More than that it is ‘mana’ (mind) – the ultimate reality is ‘manas’. Manas is the most subtle form of matter. Beyond manas, there is prangnanam (consciousness) and this consciousness can be seen in matter also. Ultimately it goes to a level of experience that can either be approached by mind or explained by words and such an experience is termed as Ananda. One must be able to communicate at that level also. Pluralism definitely raises the question of communication and this issue of communication can be resolved properly only if one is able to accept that there is something common in between you and me. Common entity can either be matter, life, mind, consciousness and ultimately the extreme Bliss (Ananda). There are various levels of experience, with regard to communication. All these have to be recognized and the moment we recognize it, the question that arises is, ‘what is the tool by which one must be able to understand that common element?’

By Dr. K S Radhakrishnan on 05-06-2012

Chopping the Head

It is at this point that we have to think of a different way of life that says that though there is flesh and blood in human beings, they are something more than that. According to Bible, “Man can never live by bread alone.” He needs something that comes out of the mouth of God. That something can be anything. It has been identified as heaven by Jesus. The moment we think that we are in need of something more than the flesh, that something is the foundation of the human beings, then the communication has to be directed to that end. From flesh to flesh we have to shift the communication to spirit to spirit or heaven to heaven. So the heaven in me and the heaven in you must be identical. This fact has already been explained in a brilliant manner with logical precision and clarity by the Advita System. The Advaita basically says that the world is a pluralistic entity but amidst that pluralism there must be something that is identical in everything that makes communication possible. A man and man, that is flesh and flesh, mind and mind; and also something more than flesh and mind. That something that exists in me and you that makes communication easy and possible.  The problem of communication is really important in the present day world. With the physical proximity that has already been seen in the world, thanks to the development of IT and transportation, we must be able to get in touch with the other within the least possible time. But the unfortunate fact is that the physical proximity alone is not enough to understand oneself and the other. So we have to find something more than that. That is why the Advaita System says that human beings are something more than what we directly perceive. Advaita asks ‘who you are?’ ‘I am the body’, that is one of the finest answer one can give. But are you the body alone? ‘No I’m more than that. There is mind in me.’ ‘Are you mind alone?’ ‘No, I’m more than that. There is spirit in me.’ ‘Are you Spirit alone?’ ‘No I’m more than that. There is pure Ananda in me’. This type of experience also must be identical. This problem has either been forgotten or misrepresented by many of the scholars and exponents of various Systems of thought, especially that of Western origin, more precisely that of the Greek origin, because Greek philosophy basically believes in bifurcation. There is no unity in Greek philosophy and the philosophical development of bifurcation is the central problem of Greek philosophy. That problem has not yet been properly solved by the tradition. So, generally we would like to say that there is a Decarthian problem or the Carthesian bifurcation, which says that there is difference between body and mind. Hence, we have got a psychology that is entirely different from that of the physiology.  There is physiology and psychology and these two systems are working on different systems of thought. Physiological rules and regulations need not be applicable to the psychological operation; hence we have the psycho-somatic; soma means body and psycho means mind. The somatic entity need not be applicable to the mind because mind is an entity totally different from body and what exactly is the relation between body and mind still remains an unresolved question or puzzle or riddle in the entire history of the Zen thought. Resolving this question Richard Rorty has suggested that it is possible to have a man without mind. So if there is no mind there is no question of any division between body and mind. This is as easy as possible to treat the headache of a man then it is better to chop the head itself; then we must be able to eradicate the whole ache due to the ailment of the head.

By Dr. K S Radhakrishnan on 29-05-2012

Flesh Verses Flesh

Positive aspects of the new market economy and the IT revolution is that it has made the whole Democracy can never be maintained in a uni-polar world; it can be maintained only in a pluralistic world. One of the world into a world of plurality. For ex. a man who lives in a remote village of Kerala cannot remain aloof from the developments of other parts of this affluent world. The so called European culture has often been accused as an inferior stuff by the Oriental group of philosophers, writers and scholars. But today, nobody can keep away from the influence of the so called European culture because even without your invitation, either you like it or not, the European culture is within the frames of your own living room. Whether you like it or not, it is there. The other ‘now-a-days’ is very near to you in physical terms.  The question, how is it possible to get communicated with the other who is physically very near to you, leads you to the problem: what is common between oneself and the other. The other here can be a religion, a system of life, a philosophy, a continent, a man with a difference or an object with a difference. The other is too near to you either in the virtual world or in the actual world. Since the other is too near to you, you will be forced to get communicated with the other. The question on the tool that helps to get communicated with the other is a fundamental question. To make communication easier, however, that common element has to be identified and experienced. But, this seldom happens in the present day world. This is a very serious problem. Though we have developed too many theories on communication, the real problem of communication is within oneself, not anything external to him. That is what that is common between ‘I’ and ‘You’; in another sense, what is common between oneself and the other, what is common between one religion and the other, what is common between one continent and the other, what is common between one philosophy and the other. If there is nothing common between one religion and the other, the only possibility is relational conflict. If there is nothing common between ‘I’ and ‘You’ the only possible relation is estrangement.  Estrangement means, ‘I will be really afraid of you’. An estranged entity or an estranged person or whatever it may be, it creates fear in human beings. So, there must be fear. So what is common between ‘I’ and ‘You’? While Jesus was teaching His philosophy and way of life, this question was asked. When He was talking about the kingdom of God, this question was raised. We see Him saying that what is common between you and me is the heaven. That means that there must be heaven in you and me; there must be something common in between you and me that makes communication possible. So communication can be made easy and possible only when one is able to find out the common aspect that exists in me and the other.  This aspect has often been forgotten by the present day Western thinkers. The present day world is too much concerned with anti-foundationalism. For example Richard Rorty asks, “Where are the foundations? I have not seen it.” But, if there are no foundations communication is impossible. Communications can be possible only if there are certain foundations, which must be common for the one and the other. That common element can be reduced to human flesh alone. Then flesh must be able to communicate with flesh. Only the identical elements make communication easy. If one thinks that man is flesh alone then everything that he expresses about man must be the various dimensions of the flesh alone and everything that can be communicated to the flesh alone. Here, the flesh communicates with the flesh. That sort of a communication system says that man is nothing but a lump of flesh and there may be blood also. So, if at the moment one thinks that human beings can be reduced to flesh alone then everything that is related to human beings must be related to the flesh also. It is here that we have to confine ourselves to the pleasures that can be enjoyed through the sense organs. Epicureans firmly believe that the human aim is to enjoy the maximum sensual pleasure. The moment we admit that our aim is to enjoy the maximum pleasure, then we have to admit that this pleasure is related to flesh alone.  

By Dr. K S Radhakrishnan on 23-05-2012

Lessons from the Sky

Democracy does not mean that it is the rule of the human beings alone. The definition that democracy is the government of the people for the people and by the people is an obsolete one. Such a democracy can be termed as anthropocentric democracy where we are concerned only with the right of the human beings alone. We are totally unconcerned with the right of a granule of dust or the whole of vegetative kingdom. Democracy can never be a good system of government if it exploits nature, because it affects the free movement of the individual in one sense or the other in a different manner. So in a democratic set up what happens is that one has to expand the definition of democracy. Democracy has to include not only the human beings but also the biotic and the non-biotic entities of the universe as a whole. So a democratic government must be able to respect the right of a particle of dust and also it must extend a possible regulated mechanism to protect such a right, maintained by the non biotic world. It can never be confined to the biotic world alone but to the non-biotic levels also and then we must be able to protect the right of one and all. So democracy in this sense is not the rule of one or a few over the majority or the minority or the rest who are not part of a particular ideology but democracy means it is the rule by one and all in the sense that everyone must be able to regulate himself. Such a self regulated activity alone can be treated as the basis of democracy.  Then a question can be raised about the nature of non-human beings which are not concerned with the discriminatory power which is not applying the discriminatory power. How can we say that they are also part of a democracy? The answer is that no being or non- being in the universe except human beings will never be able hurt the rights of the other entity. Take for the example of a lion. A lion eats only when it feels hungry. No lion kills another animal as part of their sporting experience. This is not the case of human beings. No being in this universe ever collects anything for its family or its future generation. What they are doing is that they want only what they need at that particular moment of time. Human beings have got the habit of collecting and keeping things for a long time. They expect that they can keep it forever because they falsely believe that they must be able to lead a very long life on earth or probably till the end of it. Such a concept is too dangerous. What is possible is that in a democratic set up the people must be able to understand the fact that non-biotics are strictly following the rules of Nature and the Universal law that governs the macro and the micro, organic and the inorganic in manifestation. But human beings due to their ability to apply discriminatory power have got the habit of collecting and keeping. That is why Jesus once asked his disciples to learn the principles of right living on the earth not from the human beings but from the birds of the sky. No bird hoards anything for the future. It gets enough to satisfy the present. Humans are not able to follow that dictum but the spirit of that dictum should be practiced and maintained by every human being.  

By Dr. K S Radhakrishnan on 15-05-2012

Democratic Problems

As we have already seen, the system of Advaita propagates plurality and freedom. Plurality admits uniqueness and identity; uniqueness in the sense that every individual needs unity. But at the same time, there is something common between one and the other. When there is something common in between, then there can be communication.  A democratic system can be maintained only in a state of effective communication methods. For effective communication, the primary requirement is that there must be something common in between I and You. Wherever there is nothing common in between I and You, there cannot be any communication and wherever there is no communication there cannot be a democratic set up. Freedom depends highly on democracy in the sense that one of the preconditions for freedom is communication. This shows the fact that a free individual must be able to share something with the rest; he has to take something from the rest. This type of give and take relationship can be maintained only in a democratic set up.  In the capitalist set up especially in a market economy, there is no question of giving or taking but only grabbing. Everyone wants to grab the maximum at the maximum level. Maximum level means every individual leads a nomad like universe where he lives as a free individual who is totally cut off from the rest of the society. So he wants to maintain a world of his own. But in a democracy, no one maintains his or her own world. The world is his own but at the same time it has to be shared with the rest. So what I am telling is that the free individual has to admit that he is free to regulate himself. Such a self-regulated individual and the communion of such individuals form a society. Such a self-regulated individual and communion of individuals made society that also believes in self regulation can constitute a democratic set up. The present day market economy can never be able to give any sort of guarantee to democracy.  Any platform of privatization, liberalization or globalization also cannot be liberal because a person who believes in competition can never be liberal. A liberal person has to admit the right of the other individuals. The world that has already been liberalized for the market economy is to get it the maximum for each individual to get in his/her custody, not sharing anything with the rest. Such a state can never be treated as liberalized. A pluralistic society has to admit these and at the same time admit the identity between one and the other. Identical factor is a common factor; it is that common element that makes communication possible. Democracy can be maintained only in a society in which effective tools for communication also is maintained. Then the question arises is how is it possible to maintain democracy where there is no regulation at all. An unregulated society can never be treated as democratic; it is a chaotic society. So, at the ultimate stage, the state next to the present, there should be of utter chaos if we are not able to regulate the unfettered march of globalization. So, the possible form of government according to Advaita is the democracy. 

By Dr. K S Radhakrishnan on 08-05-2012

Freedom in Anarchy and Despotism

The competition as it has been envisaged by the market economy leads the whole society either into anarchy or into despotism. Anarchy results in the disintegration of both the individual and the society. Freedom can never be identified with anarchy because in an anarchic set up there is no regulation at all. Without regulation there is no freedom guaranteed. Freedom requires regulation and an individual is always regulated by some force. Whenever and wherever our society is being regulated by itself then it can enjoy freedom. That can never be equated to anarchy. Market economy takes the whole society either to anarchy or to despotism. Despotism can be practiced in a novel manner in the new world in the form of corporate management tactics. The corporate world believes in an open world that is the free world – an unregularized and liberated world. In a liberated world the corporate giant must be able to establish itself. This shows that after the establishment of the might over the meek according to the corporate giant, what remains there is despotism.  In a despotic set up, either in economic sector or in political field, or in cultural arena, wherever it may be, it ultimately leads the whole society to slavery. In effect, the present day economic practice takes the whole world into different islands of slaves through despotism, unfettered competition and unregulated life pattern and life mode. This can never be treated as a sign of freedom because freedom can never be guaranteed by any despot. Freedom is not something that is not given by somebody to someone but it has to be taken by the individual himself, the society itself and also the nation itself. If the individual never takes the freedom to experience freedom, such an individual will never be able to enjoy freedom. One has to prepare oneself by self-regulation, for this unique enjoyment of freedom.  Freedom can never be enjoyed without giving its price. Its price means the individual has to take up the responsibility. Responsibility of an action can be established on the individual, only when he is being regulated by himself. But in the other cases of an individual being regulated by some  external forces, then naturally such a society of individuals can never be treated as a free one. So freedom in this sense either at the individual level or the societal level or at the national level can be enjoyed only by regulation by itself. This factor has been totally eliminated by the market economy or the new economic system. This is a very serious thing; when we think of a society in terms of the competition that has been permitted by or that has been enjoyed by the present day system of economic practice, then we have to think of the one fact that such a society can never give or guarantee freedom. Advaita believes in self regulation as an effective means of enjoying freedom. Equality, fraternity and liberty, can be enjoyed in a democratic set up only within the frames of self- regulation. No society can be said to practice equality if it denies self-regulation. Fraternity is the direct result of self-regulation. To maintain fraternity one has to admit that there are differences of opinion and such differences has to be admitted as pre-condition for the existence of society and the individual. 

By Dr. K S Radhakrishnan on 24-04-2012

Competition and Annihilation

Advaita system aims at plurality and co-existence at the levels of both humans and non-humans. In a sense, it envisages an eco-centric universe, where the centre of every spacio-temporal manifestation should be at the centre within that spacio-temporal manifestation and it must be that centre which must be the governing force of each and every existence. Equality is an essential condition for pluralism; equality does not mean uniformity. It means uniqueness, identity and co-existence. Equality does not mean that everyone should get a share which has been fixed by an external force or authority, and everybody should be able to get his share as regulated by himself. In such an act of regulation, the individual should be very careful not to take the maximum but to confine himself to the minimum. The confinement of one’s minimum is the necessary precondition. And such a confinement alone will be able to guarantee plurality, equality, co-existence and freedom.  A free society means a society that regulates itself just like a free individual means an individual who regulates himself; so is a free social mechanism. In this sense, freedom means self regulation. So, the regulated by himself and should regulate himself aspects should be the necessary tool to be noted in a pluralistic society. Such a society must be the strength of the world. A strong human being means a person who is being regulated by himself. Such an act or mechanism of self-regulation, is to be practiced by every individual, every institution, and every stations and positions in a society. But unfortunately, the first casualty of the modern economy or the said to be market economy is the plurality. If we attain the principles defined by the modern economy, then we have to think of the annihilation of all the rest for the existence as supreme. In such a society there cannot be co-existence but only competition and annihilation and a society that believes in competition and annihilation, cannot guarantee any sort of freedom. This is the second casualty in the modern economy. Here, the society can never be free, the individual never can be free, a nation can never be free. In such a set up it is also not possible to reach the actualization of all they potentialities of an individual. Naturally, the theory that competition is an essential condition for growth and development is absolutely nonsensical, illogical and also draconian in its nature because if we believe that there is competition, it ultimately ends up in annihilation. Such a society never gives the opportunity to express itself, to expose one’s own potentialities. So, a free society is the society that guarantees the actualization of the potentialities of one and all enjoying enough freedom to provide a set up where one must be able to actualize the inborn and the acquired talents and potentialities.  In this sense, Advaita aims at the acquired talents and potentialities. Take the example of an artist: an artist can never be able to express himself in a society that is being determined by too many forces. Here, even the Almighty God may not be able to create an individual with his genuine talents well actualized. The ethical principles of Advaita and the metaphysical ideas of Advaita can no doubt be in tune with the philosophy of such an economy.

By Dr. K S Radhakrishnan on 17-04-2012

Marks of a Progressive Society

A society becomes dignified only when the members of the same are ready to cooperate with each other, not in the sense that there should not any competition with each other. A society can be termed as peaceful creative and progressive only if it guarantees cooperation than competition and consensus than contradiction. A society that endures any type of inner conflict can never be called a progressive society. Development does not mean huge buildings, wide roads, extensive transportation or flooding Medias and it cannot also be evaluated on the number of institutions it runs. A developed society guarantees co-existence between one and all. According to Advita system a society also should not be empowerment of one group/individual over the other. We have social movements for women empowerment, Dalit empowerment and empowerment of the last in the society etc; but I don’t think such isolated empowerments of one over the other will never be able to make a society peaceful. Equal empowerment should be the rule of a peaceful society; equal empowerment, in the sense that every individual should be empowered to do his actions in his own way and not in tune with the directions that come from any outside entity. A person influenced by God can never be treated as a free person as far as he considers God as an external force. Here, he is nothing more than a tool and his actions can never be adjudged as his own actions. He also does not hold the moral responsibility for his actions. If one cannot contain moral responsibility of his actions and if a society as a whole also does not hold responsibilities of any kind, then such a society cannot be said to be a peaceful society.  According to Advaita way of thinking both the individual and the society should be free. The Advaita system believes that the centre of force that determines every individual is really within the phenomenon and not something external to it. That force should be the self-regulating force with the individual which guarantees co-existence and co-operation in any society. So a developed society is the one that contains self-regulated individuals, who are relating everything to themselves. A self regulating society can be treated as a developing society and a progressive society. We also have to remember that a collection of super power individuals of any kind also do not make any society progressive or developed. According to Advaitic attitude, an individual must be able to regulate himself, so is a society, so is a nation and so is the whole world. This self regulating mechanism in the individuals as well as in the whole universe must be experienced as the force on which the world should grow. This fact has often been ignored by both capitalists and communists. Both basically believe in centralization of power. The difference is that according to capitalism the centre of the force is an individual while in communism it is an abstract entity called the state. The state being the centre as it has been defined by its critics is not different from the individual in capitalism. Advaita system believes in de-centralization which should be applicable to the individual, society as well as the nation. 

By Dr. K S Radhakrishnan on 10-04-2012