That which keeps something alive is said to be its vrtti [occupation]. The [[pabula]] on which the mind depends for its existence and development, or the objects on which the mind ideates, are one’s mental occupation. The subtlest feeling a person can experience, which fills the mind with bliss, can be said to be one’s spiritual occupation. In the same way there are various physical occupations which preserve one’s physical existence and maintain the body. A means which one adopts to stay alive in the physical sphere is called an occupation; for example, one may be a doctor, a teacher, a businessman, etc.

It requires very little thought to realize that the different occupations create divisions between human beings. As a result people who lack high ideals usually form groups. The psychological reason is that the people’s feelings are shaped by the nature of their occupation. And these feelings together with the identical nature of the people’s mental occupations encourage the formation of groups. No matter how intense their professional jealousy or rivalry, a lawyer will seek out the company of another lawyer, a soldier that of another soldier, a doctor that of another doctor, and a renunciant that of another renunciant.

A detailed analysis of human psychology will clearly reveal that because psychic pabula are connected to matter due to the need to preserve physical existence, they are strongly influenced by matter. However, if a person has high ideals, his or her materialistic ideation will be transformed into psychic ideation which in turn will develop a spiritual quality. One will thus acquire the capacity to rise above group [groupist] psychology.⁽¹⁾ But due to an absence of spiritual idealism and universal outlook, some of those engaged in different occupations become exploiters instead of assets to society. They completely ignore the fact that their individual or group interests are not separate from, but are a part of, the collective interest.

Lawyers

Let us start by discussing lawyers. I do not belong to a particularly fastidious or orthodox section of society. The popular allegation that lawyers earn their living by deceiving others and by encouraging litigation is, according to my understanding, not totally correct. But is this frequently-made allegation totally false? Although it cannot be proved conclusively, we can say that in general most lawyers would like disputes in society to continue.

After the abolition of the zamindary system in a certain state of India, a lawyer complained to me, “Before the abolition of the zamindary system, there were constant lawsuits between one zamindar and another as well as between a zamindar and the people under his jurisdiction, and we used to earn money from this. But now the people who used to be under the jurisdiction of a zamindar do not have to come to court, and the number of civil and criminal cases has declined.” Just imagine! The good lawyer said this because he was concerned about his livelihood. In his personal life he was extremely honest and peace-loving, but the nature of his profession encouraged him to support disturbances, feuds and murder.

Though they understand the magnitude of their clients’ crimes, competent lawyers, due solely to financial greed, use their intelligence and clever arguments to get criminals honourably acquitted. Such actions certainly do not help to preserve the purity of society. Are not those who lead society into the quagmire of sin in order to further their individual interest and for financial gain as guilty as criminals? If, in the eyes of the law, associating with evil people is regarded as an evil, the attempt to help criminals avoid corrective measures (I do not like to use the term “penal system” because I am not ready to accept at all that one human being has the right to penalize another) is most certainly an antisocial action.

There is yet another and more serious consideration in regard to this sort of conduct. The process of passing a judgement does not end when a criminal is released from the corrective system. Sometimes criminal leaders derive sadistic satisfaction from seeing innocent people victimized. Cunning lawyers, when they become directly responsible for the victimization of innocent people, definitely commit a greater crime than criminals.

In spite of all this, I do believe that lawyers are necessary and have an extremely important role to play in society. Common people often cannot express themselves coherently. During a trial a frightened, nervous person sometimes behaves in such a way that his or her facial expressions arouse suspicion in the mind of the judge, which in turn influences the judgement. It is indisputable that lawyers are needed to protect common people from such dangerous situations. Apart from saving the innocent, lawyers can and do help to save criminals from unjustifiably harsh sentences which stem from prejudice or strong bias.

If supporting the guilty is an antisocial activity, is it not antisocial to appeal for leniency on behalf of the guilty? In my opinion, no. It is a lawyer’s duty to see that a person is not severely punished for a small crime. It is the lawyer, and not the public, who should clearly explain to the judge the sort of circumstantial pressure that forced a criminal to commit a crime and the extent to which the criminal was responsible (or not responsible) for the creation of these circumstances. Considering that criminals are human beings and helpless during their trials, it is certainly not a crime to provide them with proper representation. That is why I do consider it an injustice to call lawyers social parasites. They are an indispensable group of intellectuals in society.

Although I do not doubt their intentions, I do feel that those who advocate the arbitration and panchayat [village council] systems in order to reduce the cost of lawyers, should not entrust the functioning of the judicial system to the whims of an individual or a particular group. The subtle intelligence that is required in judicial procedures cannot generally be found among the majority of members of arbitral bodies or the leaders of village councils. If the selection of those on arbitral bodies and village councils is entrusted to experienced judges, it may be possible to hope for good judgements from them, but it may also turn out that those selected, despite their integrity and sincerity, pass a wrong judgement at any moment due to insufficient or incorrect knowledge of the law. Such mistakes are not normally expected from lawyers. If somebody wants to extensively implement the arbitration and village council systems in order to teach the members of the legal profession a lesson, he or she will have to agree that, for the sake of public welfare, the members of such bodies should be selected, not elected. Of course only lawyers should be eligible for selection. Such an approach is not bad.

There was a time when lawyers had both prestige and money, but today they are on the verge of losing both. Many lawyers who have little work start giving fiery lectures from political platforms. I am not suggesting that none of them are dedicated to social service. Still, most of them do not aim to serve their country but simply to solve their personal problems. They think, “It would be good if I could further my political ambition. One day I may be elected a member of parliament or even become a minister. If this does not happen it does not matter, because my work situation will still improve due to the political support of my party.” Today educated people can easily understand the motives behind their fiery lectures. Very little investigation is required to reveal that in democratic countries politics is full of lawyers who were unable to secure briefs. No other profession than this has so much scope to exploit people in the name of public service.

But why is this so? Are they alone responsible for their deceitfulness and mental degradation? Certainly not. I do not blame them in the slightest. In order to obtain their basic necessities, poor intellectuals use these kinds of psychic means instead of stealing or committing armed robbery.

The implementation of various economic-development projects should be increased, and the number of lawyers should be reduced. In the field of education, students should give most importance to the study of science and technology, followed by commerce and then the arts. Only talented arts students should be given the opportunity to pursue higher studies in the arts. A small percentage of these students should be encouraged to study law, provided they can demonstrate proficiency in sociology, civics, political science and logic. It is not at all desirable to encourage immorality by providing unlimited opportunities for students to study law, thus overcrowding the profession.

Doctors

Shatamárii bhavet vaedyah sahasramárii cikitsakah [“If one kills a hundred people, one may qualify as a quack, but if one kills a thousand people, one can qualify to be a doctor”]. It is both amusing and infuriating, yet it is true. Like an old barber, a young doctor cannot be trusted. But this is not the end of the matter. It is possible to earn the name shatamárii [one who has killed a hundred people] or sahasramárii [one who has killed a thousand people] by killing mice or guinea pigs in laboratory experiments, but is it not tragic if the killing continues after one has qualified as a doctor?

No matter what country you belong to, tell me honestly, how many doctors can you really trust and respect? Among the doctors you know, you may believe in one or two at the most, but those who have won your faith may or may not command your respect. In other words, the doctors whom you believe in, who can cure a patient, are not accessible because they cost too much. In such circumstances your confidence in the ability of doctors remains intact, but you cannot consider them as friends; nor do you have any real proof of their humanity, hence you cannot give them your respect either.

Moreover, the medical profession as such has more to do with social service than with professionalism. Social service is the main aim of the medical profession. But then social workers cannot live on air, so they have to accept some money for their livelihood from the government, autonomous bodies, public institutions or ordinary people: in short, from those they serve. To be a doctor may appear to be a way of earning a living to an unemployed person, but it cannot be categorized as a business under any circumstances. A helpless person, no matter how great his or her financial, social or intellectual capacity, considers a doctor to be a ray of light in the darkness or a lifeboat which can save him or her from drowning.

Of all the doctors you have come across, how many are idealistic and dutiful? If you visit a doctor, he or she will prescribe strong medicines for a light illness. This will inevitably be the case if he or she owns his or her own dispensary. But the same will be the case if the doctor operates a “chamber practice” out of his or her home; he or she will force some patent medicine down the patient’s throat. The doctor’s special “mixture” will also be prescribed as a matter of course. Here, of course, I am referring particularly to allopaths. The most disconcerting thing is that they frequently diagnose a case by guesswork. An examination of the blood, stool or urine often reveals that their diagnosis was totally wrong; yet the patient depends on the doctor’s guesswork and as a result is required to swallow medicine after medicine. Is this not deplorable? What a cruel joke that doctors do such things to helpless patients!

Methods of medical treatment: Current methods of medical treatment can be roughly divided into three groups.

The most common method is to fight disease with strong pills and injections. Allopathy, ayurveda and hekemii [hakims]⁽²⁾ can be included in this group because they use strong medicines and also poison as a medicine, although their methods of diagnosis and remedies differ. In this method of treatment the selection of medicines involves great risk, because more emphasis is placed on the indications of the disease than on those of the patient, and because of the possibility of causing death.

The great danger in diagnosing illnesses and prescribing medicines according to the germs and diseases present in the body is that it is nearly impossible to arrive at a firm conclusion about the precise nature of germs. Whether diseases are caused by germs or germs are created from diseases which are caused by other factors is a matter of controversy.

The symptoms of one disease may be identical to those of another, and the remedy for one may prove to be completely ineffective or even harmful in the case of the other. Moreover, as poisons are used, they may seriously affect the vitality of the patient. Just imagine, if the doctor is incompetent or is completely motivated by a business mentality, what will the plight of the public be?

There was a time when diagnosing illnesses and prescribing medicines were not very difficult because diagnoses were based on three constituents of the body – air, bile and phlegm – with blood as a fourth constituent. But increased physical and glandular complexity has led to a corresponding increase in the number and complexity of diseases. So to what extent can this method of diagnosis be useful to a doctor? Is it not simply guesswork to prescribe medicines for a particular disease when the medicine is prescribed for the disease but the disease is diagnosed according to the bodily constituents? If you mentioned this to an allopath, ayurvedic doctor or hakim he or she would probably hand over his or her stethoscope or mortar and pestle and reply, “Here you are, sir. You had better treat the disease yourself.” This, of course, is an angry remark. While I recognize that a lay person should not have the audacity to counsel a doctor, I must also point out that everyone has the right to consider the merits and demerits of a particular type of medical treatment.

The principles, application and philosophy of homoeopathy are completely different from the above medical treatments. Homoeopathy treats the symptoms of the patient, not the disease or its symptoms. So there is very little possibility of causing harm, even if the diagnosis is not quite correct. A doctor with good powers of observation and a subtle sense of discrimination can easily prescribe remedies according to the patient’s symptoms. Another speciality of homoeopathy is that medicines are administered in subtle doses, not in the form of strong tablets, and such doses quickly become active in the molecules of the patient’s body as well as in his or her mental sphere.

The greatest difficulty with homoeopathy is that it is based upon the subtle intellect of the doctor, and to achieve such a degree of subtlety regular, sustained effort is absolutely essential. Yet homoeopathic treatment is generally quite slack, and slackness is particularly evident in the proficiency of homoeopaths. Anybody can become a homoeopath by studying a few books. No one will object. In most countries there are no proper regulations either.

Surgery and injections are not acceptable to homoeopathic philosophy, but in certain instances the need for surgery as well as injections cannot be denied. Nowadays of course surgery is gradually being incorporated into homoeopathy. This is definitely a positive development.

Naturopaths do not believe in using medicine. They think that it is possible to cure patients through the gifts of nature only – through earth, water, light, heat and air, together with a proper diet. I do not deny that this is possible, but it is also often difficult to gradually and completely attune the body to nature. People should recognize that medicine does not cure disease, rather nature cures disease with the help of the body’s own healing power. Medicine only helps to accelerate the activity and speed of the healing process.

In cases where disease is caused by unnatural activity, I do not see the harm in using medicines to help nature. Just as earth, water and air are medicines, are not various types of medicines also prepared by selecting ingredients from nature? Of course precautions must be taken when using medicines to help the healing power of the body, to ensure that they do not cause physical side-effects or psychic disturbances. Where a person has not engaged in unnatural activity, he or she may still contract a disease due to pollution in the air, earth or water. In such cases is it possible to attune the body to nature? Furthermore, the diets and lotions prescribed by naturopaths are often very expensive and beyond the means of the poor.

Ápascavishvabheśajii [“Water is the universal remedy”]. I do not disagree with this assertion of the Rgveda. However, although I have a deep regard for various aspects of hydropathy and naturopathy, I do not see any reason to support the view that all types of medicine and surgery are harmful. Biná cikitsáy yata lok mare tár cáite beshii lok cikitsáy mare [“More people die with medical treatment than without it”] – nor am I prepared to accept this view, because in the acute stage of an illness even very poor people get or try to get medical treatment. I do not think such views are worth commenting on.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the majority of those who die while under the care of doctors die due to incorrect diagnoses and wrong prescriptions. All medical systems can be equally faulted for wrong diagnoses; but as far as wrong prescriptions that lead to death, in my opinion more blame should fall on those who use heavy doses of medicine.

The welfare of the patient should be the main aim of the medical profession, regardless of the philosophical or logical ramifications of a particular system of medicine. Doctors may find it somewhat difficult to work with such a principle, because it is unreasonable to expect them to be experts in all the medical systems. In reality, it is highly unlikely. Nevertheless, what is not possible in a doctor’s chambers may be possible in a hospital.

In the hospitals of some countries the welfare of the patient is given top priority and the patient is treated accordingly. Immediately after being admitted, he or she is thoroughly examined by an appropriate board of doctors who determine the most suitable system of medical treatment. In other words, if the patient’s disease can be easily cured by allopathy, he or she will be treated by an allopath; if by homoeopathy, by a homoeopath; if by naturopathy, by a naturopath; and so on. If various types of treatment are available, changing from one type to another will not be difficult in the event of the patient not responding to a particular type of treatment.

The healing power of nature: The healing power of nature cures disease; medicine only helps nature. The mind of the patient helps to activate the healing power of nature. If a doctor in whom the patient has complete faith prescribes water instead of medicine the patient will be quickly cured, but if the patient regards the doctor as a quack the disease will not be cured, even if the purest medicines known to medical science are prescribed and properly administered. It is obvious then that the disease is actually cured by the power of the mind, the medicine being secondary.

However, I do not support orthodox psychologists who believe that all diseases can be cured by psychological treatment, because psychological treatment does not work in all cases; it just cannot. Those who believe, as idealists do, that only the mind exists and not the five fundamental factors⁽³⁾ (of such idealists Lenin said, “They believe that there is a mind but not a head”), argue that the mind is responsible for all diseases. But does mind alone determine human existence? Does not the mind, which becomes agitated when the physical body is pinched, depend on the physical body? Taking hashish, marijuana, opium or wine causes a peculiar change in the mind. This is but one proof of the mind’s dependence on the body and its nerves.

A disease can be mental or can be physical. Similarly, medicine may be mental or may be physical; hence it is most desirable and productive if both kinds of medicine are administered simultaneously in all diseases, whether they are physical or mental. Those who only believe in psychological treatment for mental disease know from experience that such treatment will not permanently cure the disease and the patient will soon relapse. Only where, along with psychological treatment, guidance concerning diet, bathing and behaviour is given, and to normalize the diseased glands of the body medicines prepared from the five fundamental factors are prescribed, can the disease be permanently cured.

In the same way, if patients suffering from a physical disease are given proper medicine, food, light and air but at the same time are subjected to constant criticism and humiliation, it will be difficult for them to fully recover. Even though some people have everything they physically need, they become mentally debilitated, like a worm-eaten, withered flower. So it is evident that patients suffering from a physical disease need proper psychological treatment and a congenial environment in order to maintain their mental health.

The conduct of doctors and nurses: The patients’ faith is more important than medicine in curing a disease, but where does their faith come from? From the conduct of the doctors and nurses, who have to win their confidence and inspire them with faith. Labourers perform manual work in order to earn their livelihood; they therefore dig the ground without regard for the earth. The relationship between doctors and patients should not be like this. Doctors must use all the qualities of their minds to win over their patients. It will certainly not add to the glory of any country or government if doctors and nurses complain, “Because of the tremendous pressure of our work, we have lost all our sympathy, tenderness and sweetness.”

But to become mechanical due to the pressure of work, on the one hand; or on the other hand to show a lack of humanity by selling hospital medicines on the black market in collusion with dishonest traders, or by illegally using food, such as fruit and milk, allocated for patients; are certainly not the same thing. Can doctors and nurses involved in such activities defend themselves against the accusations of the public? Exasperated by such dishonest, exploitative bloodsuckers, the public often severely criticizes the government. However, in my opinion the government is in most cases not to blame. Of course it is quite a different matter if the government sanctions insufficient money to properly maintain hospitals, but in most cases this is not the problem.

In medical institutions where the public is made to suffer, you can be sure that improper dealings exist from top to bottom (that is, from the chief medical officer down to the orderlies and sweepers); there is an immoral association among these thieves, regardless of their rank. They are all experts in the art of exploitation – they all share the spoils. Needless to say, in such places neither the doctors nor the hospital can ever inspire faith or confidence in the minds of the patients. This is the reason that today, even after the lapse of half the twentieth century, I notice that in many countries people are still as afraid of hospitals as they are of prisons.

People try to keep out of the hands of doctors just as earnestly as they try to avoid the claws of a tiger. Doctors who operate “chamber practices” out of their homes we may be able to tolerate, but those who themselves dispense patent medicines never let a patient leave without selling him or her ten or twenty rupees worth of medicine, whether he or she needs it or not. These words may seem harsh, but anybody who has had such an experience will agree with what I have said.

Our complaints are endless. In every sphere of society there is a terrifying conspiracy. Patients are completely helpless. When we discover deficiencies in those who have made it their life’s work to cure patients of their diseases, we naturally become all the more offended and begin to complain bitterly. But while complaining we fail to notice all the difficulties that doctors and nurses have to face in their daily lives. If we discuss such matters not as patients but as human beings, then perhaps we might see that those against whom we have a long list of complaints have been forced by society, consciously or unconsciously, to get involved in antisocial activities.

Those doctors who continue to treat patients as their friends and serve society as genuine social workers while living in an antisocial environment deserve our deepest respect. But what should be done with those who are incapable of doing this, who are full of sin and can be described as antisocial bloodsuckers? According to criminology we may find among such doctors criminals due both to instinct and to poverty. To rectify them corrective measures will have to be taken, such as providing them with a proper education, imparting a proper ideology and creating a proper environment. A dishonest doctor or nurse is more harmful to society than an ordinary criminal, because such doctors and nurses not only harm society directly, they also add to social problems by not performing social service according to their capacity. Their problems should be seriously and sympathetically considered and their difficulties should be immediately solved.

I once knew an extremely honest and capable doctor who suffered greatly due to lack of money during the last years of his life. While active he was a dedicated, exemplary social worker, but when he became physically incapacitated society failed to recognize this. Is it any wonder that such circumstances force doctors to become mercenary?

I have encountered some doctors such as this who did not exploit their patients. Not only did they not take fees from poor patients, sometimes they provided medicine free of charge as well. But some patients think, “If a doctor distributes free medicine, he or she must have an ulterior motive,” so they would rather not visit such doctors. Some of these doctors are forced to maintain their families by private tuition. Perhaps that is why we hear many people say, “The medical profession is a business like any other. Can such a business prosper without doing anything wrong? It is impossible to run a business if one is totally honest.”

Let me recount an incident that occurred several years ago. In 1940 I went to a homoeopathic pharmacy. With me was a boy of twelve or thirteen, the younger brother of an acquaintance. I had gone there for some medicine for the boy. The doctor took pains to examine the boy properly, then prescribed some medicine. He said, “Please return with his medical report on Saturday afternoon.” I replied, “Will Saturday morning not do? On Saturday afternoon I will be going out of town; I will be going home.” Further discussion revealed that we came from the same district and our homes came under the jurisdiction of adjacent police stations on opposite sides of a river. The doctor then asked me to return the medicine and said, “I am giving you another medicine.” When I asked why he said, “Both medicines are good, but I give the first medicine to people I do not know because it takes a little longer to cure the patient, hence I sell more medicine. Sometimes I am requested to make house calls too. What can I do, sir? Character is the first casualty of want.”

This incident is neither to the doctor’s credit nor to that of society. The doctor is losing his character due to poverty, caused in turn by a defective social system – isn’t this true?

Sociologists will agree that it is not desirable for those who are involved in saving lives to face financial difficulties. If in any country the people believe that they have more doctors than necessary, the study of medicine should be strictly supervised so that only competent and talented students have the opportunity to become doctors. That way, by reducing the number of unwanted doctors, those who enter the medical profession will be able to earn sufficient money with the cooperation of society and the state. In the absence of want, there is no risk of their losing their character.

But what is the situation in the world today? How many countries can claim to have more doctors than they need? In most countries there is a shortage of capable doctors. And in those countries where there is little or no shortage of doctors, ordinary people are often unable to get medical help because of financial difficulties. As a result capable doctors also experience financial difficulties which compel them to become involved in antisocial activities.

To eliminate the financial difficulties faced by doctors, temporary arrangements can be made. For example, young doctors who have financial difficulties can be sent from countries with surplus doctors to countries with insufficient doctors so that they can get the opportunity to earn a living and serve society. Education will be necessary to overcome attachment to a particular country.

Criminals are of many types and so are criminally-inclined doctors. As with criminals due to poverty, there is also no dearth of criminals due to instinct in the medical profession.⁽⁴⁾ These monsters in the form of doctors (colloquially speaking, cámár d́áktár [vile, low-class doctors]) are the scourge of society. Sometimes they behave so atrociously with helpless people – manipulating dying patients for the sake of money – that I really do not like to consider them as human beings. Such hellish creatures can be found in nearly every large or small city. Very strong measures should be taken against them with the active cooperation of society, the state and socially-concerned doctors.

Once I heard about a doctor, standing by the bed of a poor, distressed patient, who said in an authoritarian way, “You must pay my fees at once. I won’t listen to any excuses.” A poor relative of the patient left the house in despair, borrowed money by giving an IOU, and paid the doctor’s bill. I doubt whether a country can be considered civilized if the strictest reform measures are not taken against such human demons.

I once saw with my own eyes a well-educated doctor snatch a bottle of medicine from the hand of a female patient who had offered twelve instead of fourteen annas for the medicine, saying, “Must I wait till you bring me the two annas from your house? When I was studying in medical college, would the college authorities have allowed me to continue studying had I paid my monthly fees in arrears?” As she was an uneducated rural woman, she could not fully understand what he was saying. But with that humiliating rejection, she had to return home weeping without the bottle of medicine. Although this incident took place a long time ago, it remains indelibly etched on my mind.

Good and bad exist everywhere. But regrettably, among the multitudes of the “bad,” the “good” are in danger of being lost. The harshness of reality becomes glaringly apparent if we consider the medical profession as a reflection of society. On the one hand there are good doctors sincerely serving poor patients on their own initiative, and on the other hand we may observe immature young doctors proudly boasting to each other about their career prospects. Regrettable though these things may be, I do not feel that there is any reason to lose hope.

Countless complaints can be made against doctors and the medical profession. Although it would take a lot of space to list them all, let me briefly mention a few: patients have to settle for adulterated medicines unless they bribe the pharmacist; sweepers, orderlies and nurses do not take proper care of a patient’s needs unless they are tipped; a patient writhing in pain may be rebuked instead of being given medicine; if one does not call the doctor at least once for a personal consultation so that that doctor can earn some extra money, one may be unable to secure a bed on one’s next visit to the hospital; a medicine that is supposedly out of stock in the hospital can be illegally purchased in a nearby shop at an exorbitant price; without bribing the doctor a sick patient will not be admitted to the hospital; during the compulsory medical examination for a new job, all the medical staff put out their hand for a bribe; the doctor in collusion with the optician fails many people in their eye tests so that they will have to buy glasses; hospital patients are served food which is cheaper and of poorer quality than what they are entitled to; milk and fruits reserved for patients are consumed by the hospital staff; spurious drugs and injections are administered to patients. Such grievances are endless. Some are extremely serious, involving accusations of such irresponsibility that it is difficult to believe that people actually have these experiences.

Usually the public blames the government for such lapses, but in my opinion, if anyone is to blame, it is the public itself. The government is not an individual who accepts bribes or encourages immorality. The government does not support the distribution of spurious drugs. If the distribution of spurious drugs ever does get sanctioned by the government, it is due to the mistakes of immoral officials. They surrender their humanity to the rich out of greed for money. Dishonest business people are aware of their own guilt and are constantly troubled by it, but they receive encouragement from greedy and mentally-weak police and anti-corruption officials. Why not earn a hundred thousand rupees by paying a bribe of a thousand rupees! Most business people wait for the right opportunity with this type of outlook. For these reasons I do not blame the government for such immorality. Now, let us return to our topic.

The key to solving the medical problem is in the hands of the public. This is the actual truth of the matter. One may ask, “Why does the public not do something to rectify the situation?” Some maintain that these problems only occur in underdeveloped countries and that the people there tolerate evil because they are unaware of their rights. But is this correct? In underdeveloped countries there are educated people who staunchly support the different political parties and who can provide the people with leadership. Although they cannot inspire the whole society, they are certainly able to solve some of the problems. So why do they not do so? The reason is perfectly simple. A large section of the upper stratum of society is involved in corrupt practices. That is why uneducated people do not have the courage to raise their voices in protest, prevent immorality and take corrective measures against the corrupt elements active in every sphere of society.

A large number of clerks, teachers, engineers, government officials and business people who comprise the so-called educated section of society indulge in immorality and corruption in their respective professions. Their weak minds indirectly criticize injustice but cannot directly confront it. Thieves can criticize other thieves in a society of thieves, but they cannot offer suggestions in a society of honest people because their lips will quiver and their hearts will palpitate; the condition of corrupt educated people in the upper stratum of society in underdeveloped countries is similar. The Second World War has further complicated the situation.

The characters of such people have to be transformed and they will have to become honest, otherwise none of the evils in society will be eliminated, none of the problems will be solved.

So it is madness to hope that the efforts of the government alone will eliminate the problems in the medical profession, as if by magic.

To turn people into real human beings is the burning issue today, the greatest challenge. There are very few people who can take the lead in this undertaking, this sacred endeavour. Today tormented souls look to the purodhás [spiritual vanguard] of society with great expectations.

Politicians cannot provide what is needed. During the last six thousand years of human history, they have failed at every step. Hence, it would be wise for them to resist the temptation to try and take the lead in any sphere of society.

Business People

Is the medical profession alone floundering in the quagmire of sin? No. Delve into the recesses of any business person’s mind and you will find, in most cases if not all, that the garbage of sin collected there has become utterly putrefied and decomposed and polluted his or her entire psychic environment. The situation has become so bad that in most parts of the world embarking on this profession is tantamount to becoming a refined criminal. I use the term “refined” because no matter what type of business a person may start, their success depends upon their skilful use of persuasive language.

Can a business be run honestly? Why not! Of course it can. But an honestly-run business cannot make one rich overnight. In ancient times, when the varńáshrama [caste] system was in vogue, managing a business honestly was considered to be the social dharma of Vaeshyas.⁽⁵⁾ But today it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for people to run their businesses honestly.

Vaeshyas’ means of earning a living are such that at any moment they may fall victim to greed and indulge in contemptible activities. So the vaeshyas of ancient times had the term sádhu [Sanskrit for “honest”] attached to their names to help them to keep the ideal of honesty constantly alive in their minds. They were known in society as Sádhu (which became Sáhu in Prákrta and finally Sáu or Sáo⁽⁶⁾ today). History tells us that from ancient times vaeshyas have, by monopolizing trade, frequently degraded themselves and betrayed their humanity, and that since the Buddhist Age, they have accumulated most of the wealth in society.

It is worth noting that according to ancient social literature, sociologists and diplomats took a series of measures to save society from the greed and excessive hoarding of the vaeshyas. In the first part of the Middle Ages the power of the government, which was controlled by kśatriyas, was used to launch various campaigns whenever and wherever necessary to limit the hoarding tendency of the vaeshyas.

Chanakya said that a business person who becomes extremely rich is harmful to the state. If a king finds that somebody has become extremely wealthy, he should reduce the person’s wealth and property by imposing direct and indirect taxes on them. If he does not do this, the vaeshyas may destroy the structure of the government unless they can make it the tool of their exploitation. Chanakya also said that if the imposition of taxes fails to stop or control extremely wealthy vaeshyas, the king should poison them to death through a secret agent. These are indeed strong recommendations, but in that age of social darkness there was no alternative. Vaeshyas received the good advice that their responsibility was to earn money and undertake charity, not to hoard wealth.

But the vaeshyas of other times and other countries were unable to fulfil the duties connected with their nature. Because the ignorant people of ancient times were more religious, the vaeshyas used to undertake a little charity in the hope of deriving some benefit in their next life. But today in this age of materialism, vaeshyas are not the slightest bit interested in undertaking charitable work in this life in the hope of gaining some benefit in their next life.

According to Indian social treatises, “Those who donate to others in this life are misers, and those who are misers are actually donors.” This ironic statement was made about hypocritical vaeshyas. “Those who donate to others in this life are misers” means that those who give donations to others in this life have deposited something in their next life’s account; that is, they have successfully arranged so as to maximize their accumulation. And “those who are misers are actually donors” means that misers when they die give up all their hard-earned wealth, because they have not deposited anything in their next life’s account. But the vaeshyas of today are not to be charmed by such humour.

Regarding earning money and hoarding wealth, most vaeshyas today are pishácavats [ghouls]. In Sanskrit pisháca means “one who breaks the neck of an animal and then sucks out all the blood, leaving only the flesh and bones”. In India it is said that it is extremely difficult to understand the nature of these bloodsucking pisháca vaeshyas – because when they drink water, even if it is already pure, they filter it; but on other occasions they drink people’s blood, which, even if it is not pure, they do not bother to filter! Sometimes they kick the heads of their customers, and sometimes they lick the soles of their feet.

Incidentally, the word vaeshyas actually means “those who produce through various occupations”. But today the meaning has completely changed. Today vaeshyas means “those who profit by trading and broking without being directly involved in production”. Where profit is the only objective, there is every possibility that all types of selfish and antisocial activities will flourish. In one sense the vaeshyas of developed countries are better than those of other countries because although they engage in activities which are detrimental to the welfare of the public, they generally prefer not to undertake activities which are harmful to public health, due to either their own consciences or people’s awareness of their rights.

If, after analysing the economic structure of society, I described vaeshyas from developed countries as polished devils, I would find it extremely difficult to find a suitable term for their counterparts in underdeveloped countries. Such vaeshyas are not satisfied with just sucking people’s blood, they often devour their flesh and bones as well; then they beat drums made from the skins of their victims as they deliver religious and philosophical discourses, build temples and construct lodgings for pilgrims, and undertake various other activities. They criticize materialism and try to retard its progress not because they object to it philosophically or psychologically, but because in a materialistic system there is every possibility that their vested interests would be adversely affected. Although they support spirituality, they are not motivated by spiritual sentiments. The fake spirituality they preach actually injects impotency into society. In their endeavours they are assisted by like-minded exploiters who trade in religion.

There is an unhealthy collusion between vaeshyas and those who trade in religion to try to prevent human beings from forcefully asserting their rights. They try to persuade people that exploitation, the sucking of blood, by vaeshyas, is not an outrage but a law of nature; that it is useless to try to bring about social welfare by establishing human rights. The exploited people should forget about the world and support those who trade in religion in order to enjoy unlimited happiness in an imaginary heaven.

Now, let us return to our previous subject. The vaeshyas of today have let loose the reins of their greed. Perhaps they can hear the sound of their death-knell. Because they lack a spirit of sacrifice and are not prepared to undergo hardships in order to progress, the great majority of them are unable to find their path in life. They believe that their business will be short-lived, and like Abu Hussain [a fictitious character who became king for a day] they lack discrimination, plundering as much wealth as they can to satisfy their greed without caring about right or wrong.

Among these vicious vaeshyas there are some who project themselves as philanthropic politicians. They also devour the people, but they shed a few false tears. They too have not discovered any real meaning in life. Their only aim is to fool the public in order to prosper in business. They try to prevent class struggle by advocating non-violence and preaching utopian philosophies, although they realize full well that if spirituality, whether or not it is practised in individual life, is not practised in at least an important section of collective life then it will be impossible to remove the economic disparity and exploitation of the vaeshyas without conflict.

Only the small number of good vaeshyas in whom humanism has begun to develop and who have discovered the meaning of life, should be eligible to guide and manage the material affairs of society. Some among them may say, “What I save, I lose. It is a sin to die rich.”

Business enterprises: Is there any way to escape from the uncontrolled propensities and ghoulish hunger of the vaeshyas? Some argue that all business enterprises should be directly controlled by the state so that people will be free from exploitation. Others argue that all businesses should be run by cooperatives so that people will be able to control their own economic destiny. Still others argue that businesses should be owned by private enterprise, that the state should only indirectly control businesses, and that greedy exploiters should be controlled through legal means; or, if indirect state control is not possible, the state should curb the wealth of the vaeshyas by imposing high taxes. I prefer not to mention the views of those who directly support capitalism, because their opinions are not worth noting. They want the shortcomings in society to remain so that they can continue to exploit the situation.

The widespread nationalization of industry cannot be supported for a number of reasons. The two main reasons are as follows. First, if a state is completely dependent on its bureaucrats (it should be kept in mind that no matter what people say, bureaucrats will always play an important role in the structure of a government, because without them the administration cannot function), it will not be possible to properly run all the large- and small-scale businesses and industries spread over the entire country. Officials are required not only to keep accounts, but also to supervise workers. Secondly, it is not possible for state-controlled industries to be as proficient either industrially or commercially as private enterprises which can make any product more cheaply and with greater efficiency than a state-controlled industry. Without the backing and preferential treatment of the state, state-controlled industries cannot compete with non-government enterprises.

The proposal to run all industrial and commercial enterprises as cooperatives is also unrealistic. This is because a cooperative enterprise is built with the collective labour and intelligence of a group of people who share a common economic structure, have the same requirements, and have markets available nearby for the goods they produce (or purchase). Although an enterprise may be called a business venture and be run using the limited resources of its members, it cannot be called a cooperative unless these three factors are all present. It will not have the fundamental characteristics of a cooperative.

To run a business as a private enterprise under state control is worse than running a business that is completely nationalized, because it will not only suffer from the defects inherent in nationalization, it will also lead to the creation of a group of rich but vikśubdha [disgruntled] vaeshyas in society who in all likelihood will express anti-national sentiments and stoop to any means to re-establish their power. Indirect state control over industrial enterprises and attempts to prevent them from increasing their profits are doomed to failure, because it will not be difficult for business people to deceive the government by falsifying their accounts with the collaboration of dishonest officials. In such a system businesses will not retain the same prices as when they were non-government private enterprises; they will increase their prices due to increased expenditure.

Most countries realize that only imposing high taxes will not be successful once uncontrolled commercial freedom has been granted to business people. In most countries today the revenue collected through sales tax, service tax, income tax, wealth tax, etc., is only a very small fraction of the total revenue that could be collected. Tax evaders are much more intelligent and skilful than those who collect taxes. They are also united by their mutual interests while tax collectors are not. This is because tax collectors fight among themselves for a share of the spoils, remain divided over policies, and show a lack of mutual trust. Hence it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to curb the domination of vaeshyas by trying to force them to pay high taxes. Even if this became possible as a result of tremendous efforts, the common people would not really benefit.

In my opinion we should take a middle path in order to save society from the enormous greed of the vaeshyas. By middle path I do not mean compromising with them and partially tolerating their greed. What I mean is that whatever we do we should do so as to maintain the balance of society. It is inadvisable to act rashly or out of jealousy, because this may adversely affect some spheres of social life, thus undermining the good and honest aspects.

The production and distribution of food and clothing: The most essential things for self-preservation are first food and then clothing. So let us discuss the problems of food and clothing.

In most countries the distribution of food is controlled by business people, and in many countries they control not only the distribution but also the production of food. That is, business people who are farmers in name only own large areas of land legally in their own names or illegally in the names of others, while the farm labourers, peasants or sharecroppers who are the actual farmers, grow golden crops through their own labour and give most of each crop to their non-labouring masters. Almost everyone in the world today has in principle acknowledged that only genuine farmers should own arable land, and that no third party should come between them and the revenue department of the government. So it must be accepted that in the production of food, the question of ownership by non-producing business people does not arise at all.

But those who are themselves farmers, that is, those who, in principle, can be called vaeshyas, is it proper for them to have individual ownership of land? No, certainly not. The amount of arable land one farmer is capable of farming is not very large, so if he or she owns a large amount of land, it will not be possible for him or her to efficiently arrange seeds, improved manure, irrigation, etc. Personal problems also sometimes arise resulting in seeds not being sown or harvests not being reaped on time. Hence, the land may remain uncultivated. Uncultivated land is a liability for the human race.

Land is also unnecessarily wasted by demarcating the boundaries of privately-owned land. (Actually it is a complete waste of land to demarcate the boundaries of land where land is of the same level.)⁽⁷⁾ It is also difficult to introduce improved methods of cultivation on small plots of privately-owned land. Because of this problem many countries, despite being educationally and intellectually developed, have not been able to introduce tractors, the latest technology and scientific systems in the field of agriculture. If anyone thinks that land should be owned by individual cultivators because they are deeply attached to their land, we may also argue that those who own land but do not work in the fields have and will continue to have a deep attachment to their land. Actually in this matter we should give more importance to collective welfare than to the sentiments of the individual.

In my opinion all the land in the entire universe is the common property of every human being. A particular individual, group of individuals or state should only have the right to preserve and properly utilize a particular piece of land. No one should need to worry about the ownership of land.

The preservation and utilization of land should be the responsibility of the local government, which in turn should carry out its duty through producers’ cooperatives composed of actual farmers. The disadvantages of private ownership will not manifest if the land is collectively owned in a cooperative system. The use of proper scientific methods will make it possible to increase crop production without much effort.

It is undesirable for business people to have the right to distribute food grains. Only consumers’ cooperatives should have this right. As long as the production and distribution of crops is controlled by vaeshyas rather than by cooperatives, it is absolutely impossible to stop hoarding, speculation, black marketing and adulteration in food markets. The slightest weakness in such matters will have extremely dangerous consequences. Such weakness is not at all desirable in those who love humanity and practise politics. It is completely immoral for food grains to lie in the warehouses of black marketeers and speculators to be eaten by rats while people die little by little of starvation.

Besides food and clothing, fuel may also be considered an essential commodity. Distributing fuel through business people has the same drawbacks as distributing food. Local consumers’ cooperatives should have the sole right to distribute essential, though not all, varieties of clothing, and the essential fuels produced in their countries (wood is used in some places, and coal or oil in others) in any given age. Producers’ cooperatives should have the sole right to produce essential clothing and, as far as practicable, essential fuels. Where this is not possible (such as where the conditions and climate are unsuitable for spinning thread) the right to produce the associated raw or half-finished materials for a particular industry and to supply them to producers’ cooperatives, should belong to the state government or local autonomous bodies and not to business people. At most, business people should have the right to produce and distribute non-essential foods and fuels, because then there is virtually no chance of their exploiting the common people by exerting undue pressure on them.

The production and distribution of other commodities: Business people should not be given the right to produce reading and writing materials or any commodities not classified as luxury items (such as razor blades, washing soap, etc.) Only producers’ cooperatives or the state government should have this right. These goods should, of course, be distributed through consumers’ cooperatives. Business people may be permitted to produce and distribute commodities considered to be luxury items.

Business people should not have the right to produce materials for constructing houses (such as cement and metal products) that cannot be easily manufactured everywhere. Such materials should be manufactured directly by the state government or by large cooperatives which are supported by the state government. Distribution should be directly arranged by the state government or by state-controlled autonomous bodies. Business people should not be allowed to meddle in such matters at all because they will try to create artificial scarcity, to increase the demand for commodities which are in limited supply.

On the subject of housing materials, I have observed that dishonest business people, in collusion with dishonest government officials, compel the owners of incomplete houses to buy cement, corrugated tiles, etc., from black marketeers by creating circumstantial pressure. Those who are socially aware and have had bitter experiences in such matters should carefully eliminate the cause of this problem.

As with construction materials, the manufacture of drugs is not safe in the hands of business people.

Out of their greed some people add flour, guŕer bátásá⁽⁸⁾ or other things to milk and then demonstrate its thickness with a lactometer, ignoring the detrimental repercussions their actions have on unsuspecting consumers, especially children and sick people. It is not desirable to entrust the production or distribution of any necessary item to criminals who betray society by adulterating medicines, pushing sick people little by little into the jaws of death.

The right to manufacture medicines should be entrusted to autonomous bodies which can distribute the medicines themselves or through consumers’ cooperatives. If necessary, certain types of medicines may be manufactured by the state or central government, but it is preferable for them to be distributed by autonomous bodies or cooperatives.

The production and distribution of [non-essential] housing materials and non-essential food items (such as sweets, betel, etc.) may remain in the hands of business people.

Business people should not have the right to manage banks, because past experience has shown that managers who are dishonest business people have seldom protected the hard-earned savings of ordinary depositors. Many have profited by illegally or recklessly investing the bank’s money; their activities have also ruined many middle-class families. The number of middle-class people who have lost the money they were saving for their old age is not small.

The less private enterprise is provided with business opportunities and the more production and distribution is carried out through cooperatives⁽⁹⁾ and autonomous bodies, the better. The less the government is involved with the public in the areas of production and distribution the better its relationship with them will be, and the less power the central government has in these areas the better.

Trading: In the area of trade, state governments must have the right to take action against those involved in black marketeering, speculation, adulteration, illegal misappropriation and the creation of artificial scarcity, but broad-based autonomous bodies (such as district boards or municipal corporations) should also have sufficient power to act. This is because if ordinary people want to take action against a local offender they may have to register their complaint with an individual police officer, then with the police station, then with the sub-divisional administration and finally with the district administration, the entire process taking about six or nine months, and when they reach the state capital, they learn that such matters come under the jurisdiction of the central government and not the state government. This type of situation is certainly not desirable. The state government must have the right to pass and enforce anti-corruption laws.

To eliminate dishonesty in business, free trade should be established throughout the world as far as possible and the speculative markets of all countries should be immediately closed down.

Actors

I do not believe that all singers, artists or actors who awaken the subtler faculties of mind in others by inspiring them through their art, are business people. (Here I am using the term “business” to describe the people’s mental make-up. It is not correct to call artists who accept money for their own or their families’ basic requirements business people or business-minded.) However, the vast majority of artists (most of whom are actors) are one hundred ten per cent business-minded. My discussion here focuses on these artists.

The purpose of inspiring people through art is to illuminate the dark and lonely recesses of their minds, to remove their monotony and make their life joyful, at least for a little while. But this joyful experience is socially justified only when it spreads a sweet feeling of benevolence in all spheres of society. In other words, art should inspire the creation of sweet, benevolent sentiments and the continual reawakening of latent faculties.

Everyone will agree that this aim can only be achieved when there is a sweet relationship between the artist and the audience. It is not possible through business. Art cannot be allowed to remain in the hands of those who exploit artistic endeavour for business purposes.

Today in most countries of the world those who are not business people or who do not exploit art for business purposes but are genuine artists or art lovers, face acute financial as well as other difficulties for the sake of art. Those who exploit art for business purposes gain name, fame and money and dominate social life. They are the heroes of the youth or the adored goddesses of the cinema-goers. Their pictures adorn living rooms and their autographs are preserved in collectors’ albums. Sarasvatii [the goddess of art and knowledge] has to be liberated from her enslavement to Lakśmii [the goddess of wealth]. Ample opportunities have to be provided to talented artists, and the performances of those who exploit art for business purposes have to be controlled. Speculating on theatrical or cinematic productions has to stop.

Some people maintain that the ownership and management of cinemas, theatres and all types of concert halls should be in the hands of artists’ cooperatives. Although this sounds like a good idea, it does not merit our full support because born artists keep their minds engrossed in benevolent thoughts in order to inspire ordinary people, and thus tend to forget about the hard realities of life. They generally lack the practical intelligence needed to run a cooperative. In my opinion the right to own and manage cinemas, theatres and all types of concert halls should be in the hands of local autonomous bodies which are supported by the state government. However, artists should be completely free to select films and live performances and all other activities related to art.

The salaries of artists should depend upon their abilities and the needs of their families. A large percentage of the net profit from artistic events should be distributed among the artists as bonuses. Provision should also be made so that they receive pensions when they retire.

The youth of a country are attracted to artists; it is therefore the duty of society and the state to monitor these artists’ ideals and character. Otherwise they may exert a harmful influence on young men and women who are the future hope of society. For this reason it is essential for artists to have impeccable conduct, a healthy lifestyle and strength of character. If those whom youths respect as ideal men and women possess an ideal character, the characters of those whom they influence will no doubt also be positively affected. In addition, ideal artists and actors who have a strong character will be able to express their artistic brilliance more sweetly and completely. Characterless, drunken or greedy artists will be considered liabilities by their fans and society.

The nature of art is such that in order to develop it subtle intellect and appreciation as well as deep sensitivity is required. Thus, during that time that artists do not devote to their artistic efforts, they often feel compelled to express their subtle intellect, appreciation and deep sensitivity in a demeaning way. Due to this psychological tendency, we generally find that artists whose singing, dancing, acting or other artistic achievements earn the unstinting praise of hundreds of spectators express their subtle artistic power in quite opposite ways in private life through the pursuit of material gratification. Thus we hear obscene language from devotional singers and observe a strong worldly attachment in detached spiritual aspirants. Those who are fanatically sanctimonious in their youth become immoral lechers in middle age. Actors are no exception.

The only way to save oneself from this kind of psychological degradation is to keep one’s mind constantly engaged in the thought of the Great and to always look upon the world with sweet, benevolent sentiments. Artists and actors must never forget this even for a moment because they have a great responsibility to society and an immeasurable influence over it.

Unlike in the past, people today do not want to establish separate theatrical societies for artists because of immoral conduct. Actors are now a part of society and this will continue. This is necessary in the greater interest of society.

Although actors are not fully accepted in Indian society today, in practice they are becoming or are in the process of becoming fully accepted. So under these circumstances strict vigilance should be kept over the purity of their individual conduct. They should not become the cause of a disease which invades the whole social body like a cancer. If actors and actresses fail to acquire a basic level of personal purity or are reluctant to acquire it, it will be the duty of society and the state to compel them to lead good lives by creating circumstantial pressure. No matter how talented they may be, immoral actors and actresses will have to be deprived of their right to exhibit their artistic talents, and sent to reform schools.

Footnotes

(1) For further discussion on group psychology, see “Service Psychology and Group Psychology” in Volume 4. –Eds. [Footnote used in the Prout in a Nutshell Volume 1 Part 2, 1st edition, publication of this article.]

(2) Ayurveda and hekemii are traditional Indian systems of medicine. –Trans.

(3) All matter is constituted of one or more of the five fundamental factors: the ethereal factor, the aerial factor, the luminous factor, the liquid factor and the solid factor. –Trans.

(4) For further discussion on criminals due both to poverty and to instinct, and on the other categories of criminals, see “Justice”. –Eds. [Footnote used in the Prout in a Nutshell Volume 1 Part 2, 1st edition, publication of this article.]

(5) “Vaeshyas” are members of the second-lowest caste in the Hindu caste system of India; vaeshyas are those with a capitalistic mentality. –Trans.

(6) Common surnames. –Trans.

(7) Demarcating land with a low mud wall, a foot or so wide, renders that much land unarable. –Trans.

(8) Bátásá are sweets in the form of small, lumpy balls – in this case made from guŕ (raw sugar, boiled sugar-cane juice). –Trans.

(9) For further discussion on cooperatives, see “Agrarian Revolution” in Volume 2, “Farmers’ Cooperatives” in Volume 3, and “Cooperatives” and “Cooperative Production” in Volume 4. –Eds. [Footnote used in the Prout in a Nutshell Volume 1 Part 2, 1st edition, publication of this article.]