Purusharthas, Ashramas and Indian Social Thought

Moksha. Liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth. It is the ultimate aim, and its pursuit ordinarily belongs to the later stages of life.

The relation between them. Dharma and moksha are the regulating and the ultimate aims; artha and kama are the worldly aims, legitimate within the first. The scheme is therefore neither ascetic nor materialist but an ordered accommodation of both, which is the sociologically interesting feature and the one an answer should state.

The four ashramas

Brahmacharya, the student stage: study, discipline, celibacy, and the acquisition of the skills and knowledge of one's station. In the language of this book it is a stage of socialisation.

Grihastha, the householder stage: marriage, children, occupation, the earning of wealth, and the support of the other three stages and of the society. The householder is the productive centre of the scheme, and the classical texts say so expressly.

Vanaprastha, retirement: withdrawal from active occupation, the handing over of responsibility, and preparation for the last stage.

Sannyasa, renunciation: complete withdrawal from worldly attachment in pursuit of moksha.

The sociological function of the scheme, which is what a question is asking for. It allocates the aims to the stages: kama and artha belong chiefly to the householder, dharma to all, moksha to the last. It thereby sequences a life so that competing aims do not conflict at the same moment; it provides for the transfer of authority between generations, which is a problem every society must solve; and it legitimates both worldly activity and its abandonment, so that a society can contain the merchant and the renouncer without contradiction. Louis Dumont's account of the renouncer as the individual outside a holistic society is the standard sociological treatment of that last point.

Karma, rebirth and the Indian ethos

Karma is the doctrine that action has consequences which attach to the actor across lives, and rebirth the cycle those consequences operate in. Their sociological significance is the connection with varna, treated in [Caste]: where present position is understood as the consequence of past action, an unequal order acquires a justification that is neither arbitrary nor imposed, which is the legitimation function that [Religion: Definition, Characteristics and Functions] identifies and which the conflict perspective reads as ideology.

The Indian ethos, as the phrase is used in these papers, refers to the value complex formed by these ideas together: dharma as duty specific to station, the recognised place of wealth and pleasure within it, the ordering of the life course, the doctrine of karma, the value placed on renunciation, the emphasis on the group and on obligation rather than on individual right, and the ideal of tolerance among paths.

The criticisms

These must be given, and an answer consisting only of exposition is incomplete.

1. It is a textual ideal, not a description. The scheme appears in the classical texts and was never the way most people lived. Most Indians in most periods have been cultivators and labourers whose lives had no vanaprastha and no sannyasa, and treating a normative text as an account of a society is the error Weber's Indian study was criticised for in [Weber: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism].
2. It is the scheme of a section. It was elaborated by and for the twice-born, and applied unequally: the stages and the aims as stated were not available to all varnas, nor equally to women.
3. It legitimates inequality, since svadharma makes duty depend on the station one is born into, and karma explains that station as deserved. This is the conflict reading, and it is the reason Ambedkar's critique of the scheme was so uncompromising.
4. It has been read too readily as an explanation of economic conduct, which is the substance of the criticism of Weber's India study: Indian mercantile communities pursued artha as systematically as any Calvinist.
5. It is not what governs modern Indian life, which is organised by employment, education, law and the market, though elements of it survive in the value placed on obligation and on family duty.

The balanced conclusion for an answer: the purusharthas and ashramas are a value scheme of great historical importance and considerable explanatory use, provided they are treated as norms rather than as description, and provided the question of whose norms is asked.

A worked example

Take one man's life against the scheme, and then against the record.

Against the scheme. Ramesh studies, marries, works, provides for his parents and children, hands the business to his son at sixty, and turns to religious observance. Brahmacharya, grihastha, vanaprastha, and something short of sannyasa: the classical sequence, and it fits.

Against the record, which is the sociological move. Ramesh's father worked until he died, because there was no surplus that would have allowed a vanaprastha. His wife's life had no ashrama scheme applied to it at all, her duties being defined by her relation to him. And Ramesh's own son has taken a job in another city and will not receive the business, so the transfer of authority the scheme provides for has no occasion to happen.

The example makes the chapter's point. The scheme describes a life that requires property, a male line, and a household that stays together, and where those conditions have gone, as [Changing Patterns of the Family] shows they largely have, the scheme survives as a value and not as a practice. That gap between the ideal norm and the practical norm is precisely what [Norms and Values] says to look for, and it is the right thing to say about the purusharthas in an examination.

Quick revision

1. Purusharthas, the four aims: dharma (duty, the regulating aim), artha (wealth), kama (desire and pleasure), moksha (liberation, the ultimate aim).
2. Artha and kama are recognised, not condemned; they are legitimate when pursued within dharma. The scheme is neither ascetic nor materialist.
3. Svadharma: duty specific to one's own station and stage.
4. Ashramas, the four stages: brahmacharya (student), grihastha (householder, the productive centre), vanaprastha (retirement), sannyasa (renunciation).
5. Its social functions: it allocates aims to stages so they do not conflict; it provides for the transfer of authority between generations; and it legitimates both worldly activity and renunciation.
6. Karma and rebirth connect the scheme to varna and supply the legitimation of an unequal order.
7. Indian ethos: duty by station, regulated wealth and pleasure, the ordered life course, karma, the value of renunciation, group and obligation over individual right, tolerance among paths.
8. Criticisms: a textual ideal rather than a description; the scheme of a section, unequally available by varna and to women; it legitimates inequality through svadharma and karma; it has been over-used to explain economic conduct; and it does not govern modern Indian life.

Test yourself

1. Name the four purusharthas and state the relation between them. Dharma, righteousness or duty; artha, wealth and material means; kama, desire and pleasure; and moksha, liberation. Dharma is the regulating aim and moksha the ultimate one, while artha and kama are the worldly aims which are legitimate when pursued within dharma. The scheme therefore neither condemns wealth and pleasure nor makes them supreme, which is its sociologically interesting feature: it is an ordered accommodation of worldly and other-worldly ends rather than a choice between them.

2. Name the four ashramas and state the sociological function of the scheme. Brahmacharya, the student stage of study and discipline; grihastha, the householder stage of marriage, occupation and provision, which the texts treat as the productive centre supporting the other three; vanaprastha, retirement and the handing over of responsibility; and sannyasa, renunciation in pursuit of liberation. Its functions are to allocate the competing aims to different stages so that they do not conflict at one moment, to provide an orderly transfer of authority between generations, and to legitimate both worldly activity and its abandonment within one society.

3. What is meant by the Indian ethos? The value complex formed by these ideas taken together: dharma as duty specific to a person's station, the recognised but regulated place of wealth and pleasure, the ordering of the life course through the ashramas, the doctrine of karma and rebirth, the high value placed on renunciation, the emphasis on the group and on obligation rather than on individual right, and the ideal of tolerance among different paths. It is studied by sociology as a system of norms and values, without any position being taken on its religious truth.

4. How do karma and varna connect, and why does it matter sociologically? Karma holds that action has consequences attaching to the actor across lives, and rebirth is the cycle in which they operate. Where a person's present position in the varna order is understood as the consequence of past action, an unequal arrangement acquires a justification that appears neither arbitrary nor imposed. Sociologically this is the legitimation function of religion, which makes an order of ranks appear rightful, and which the conflict perspective reads as ideology sustaining the advantage of those already placed highest.

5. Give three criticisms of the scheme. That it is a textual ideal rather than a description of how people lived, since most Indians in most periods were cultivators and labourers whose lives contained no vanaprastha or sannyasa. That it was elaborated by and for a section, being unequally available across the varnas and to women. And that it legitimates inequality, since svadharma makes duty depend on the station one is born into and karma explains that station as deserved, which is why Ambedkar's critique of it was uncompromising.