Introduction

The subject which concerns us here is that of World Government. In the light of Samuel Johnson’s statement that politics is the last refuge of scoundrels, and in view of the more than evident nuisance value created by the din of rival politicians at the time of political elections, contemplatives are naturally expected to steer clear of all politics. The question arises then as to why spiritual and contemplative persons like ourselves, speaking of Unitive Understanding (advaita) and taking our position on the long spiritual tradition of India, should dabble in such subjects as government and politics at all; and the general reader would be justified in wanting to know the place of Advaita Vedanta in such a context.

Vedanta comes into contact with the problem of human welfare only indirectly, and sometimes after prayers there is a sort of ending benediction of santi, which consists of saying, “Let all people in the world be happy”. The welfare of humanity is thus not altogether outside the scope of the Vedantic tradition of India. Suffering anywhere in the world must be considered as belonging to the subject. Every such situation has the subjective side or the self-aspect which I am not affected by works nor have I any interest in the benefit of works; he who understands Me in this manner comes no more under the bondage of works.

might be outside the context of actual suffering, and the objective side or the non-self aspect which is the actual seat or scene of such sufferings.

Advaita Philosophy, which is no other than the way of Unitive Understanding in its essence, must be capable of equating the self and the non-self as interchangeable terms.

The suffering of fellow man thus equates itself naturally with the suffering of every true Vedäntin. Bliss (ananda) and suffering (duhkha) both take place within the Self, which has the absolute status of cancelling its own subjective and objective prejudices. Advaita is a supposition taken between two rival aspects of the same problem. Thus the welfare of humanity and the suffering of even the smallest animal, such as an ant going to be lightly trampled upon by a Vedantin, become subjects of equal concern to him by the two sides of the situation in which he is to be correctly situated.

It is not the suffering as we see it in the headlines of a morning newspaper, glanced at before breakfast in a light-hearted way, that is to be kept in mind here. Headlines big and small reflect disasters major or minor, which take place in this world, and what is read in one daily newspaper is forgotten by the next morning’s breakfast. This is the common way of taking casual interest in politics. The difference between this way and the contemplative way that belongs to the Gurukula is that our interest does not fluctuate between morning and evening, or even between weekdays and Sundays.

Newspaper politics has to be reduced to a common numerator or denominator. We get thus a dialectical approach to politics which is, in our case, to be distinguished by two other terms besides Unitive Understanding. Firstly, we are interested in geo-politics, and not just politics. This implies that we treat of the planet Earth as a unit called geos, in which politics is to be discussed under the light of the Sun in terms of Fus Solice, the Justice of the Sun. We are thus interested in world politics, and not just local or even national party politics. Secondly, our politics is based on a dialectical approach, the essence of which can be stated by the formula inscribed on the shields of the two female figures in the monument of the Swiss Confederation in Geneva, Switzerland. One tall female figure holds a shield bearing the inscription, One for All; the other corresponding counterpart of the same tall woman holds another shield, though placed on the ground, with the reciprocal part of the formula, All for One.

Thus between the General Good and the Good of All there is a dialectical interplay of values. Politics emerges into view, as amply proved in the Social Contract of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, when two factors, one standing for the General Good and the other for the Good of All, come into interplay.

These subtleties require much more elaboration than what we can make in these short preliminary remarks. Geo-politics, thus understood geo-dialectically, is a special branch of discipline. We cannot go into all the detailed aspects here, but we can refer to some of the salient features of the geo-dialectical approach to World Government, by way of indicating some of the highlights and by way of underlining some of the characteristics of this kind of politics, to show that such a subject is not outside the scope of a contemplative or spiritual way of life, especially at the present-day, when mass communication portends a time when humanity will receive messages which cannot be distinguished from the medium, nor the medium from the message.