Overview

This article criticizes empirical science[1] as incomplete and thus ineffective in offering substantial solutions to environmental issues. I argue for the need for a non-empirical science, Vaiṣṇava cultural ecology, not to be confused with ideas of cultural ecology developed by anthropologists and businesses since the 1950s.[2]

The science of Vaiṣṇava cultural ecology defines culture as the interaction of three elements: human behavior, knowledge systems, and the environment.[3]

Here, the word environment is nearly synonymous with nature.

Included in the term knowledge systems are science, religion,[4] ideology, superstition, and philosophy. That is because they all combine to contribute to the reality of a culture. Modern science is empirical, and the other knowledge systems are generally non-empirical.[5]

Living in balance with nature is the true material reality and imperative of a culture. Imbalance creates a false reality.

According to Vaiṣṇava cultural ecology, for a knowledge system to operate responsibly in society, it must contribute to the human-ecosystem balance, and it must have mechanisms to prevent imbalance. Thus, all knowledge systems must be analyzed equally to determine how responsible they are, or how much they contribute to a culture’s balance or imbalance with nature.[6]

True Culture

When a culture is out of balance with nature, it is said to be unnatural. From the perspective of nature, it is a false culture since natural is true and unnatural is false.

A culture must be true or natural for its population to survive and flourish.[7]

The concept of a true or false culture is part of the epistemology of Vaiṣṇava cultural ecology.

Here, epistemology refers to a culture’s truth or material reality and how it is defined or proven as true. Sat[8] or true culture must be in balance with nature. Otherwise, it is asat.[9] Sat means true, good, or spiritual. Asat means the opposite.[10]

In Vedānta philosophy, sat means real because it is in relation to the Supreme.[11] Asat is neither real nor in relation to the Supreme. Vaiṣṇava culture is sat. It is in relation to the Supreme.

However, the objective here is to present an argument that conforms to empiricism. Empirical scientists or those influenced by them will not accept that Vaiṣṇava culture’s connection with the Supreme is proof that it is true culture.

However, they must accept that it is true culture because it is in balance with nature. It is an observable, proven fact that traditional Vaiṣṇava culture flourishes in far greater balance with nature than modern culture.[12]

A culture that lives in balance with nature is sattva. Again, sat means good, real, or spiritual. The word sat-tva[13] means goodness, reality, or spirituality, and asattva means badness, quality of impermanence, or falseness.[14] Hence, a sattva culture is goodness or reality, and an asattva culture is falseness.[15]

Also, asat is tamah or the mode of darkness, ignorance.[16]

And tamah produces ugra-karma, the work that destroys the planet.[17]

A culture that is true (sattva) is in balance with both its higher and lower nature (sva-bhāva). A culture’s nature (sva-bhāva) is to follow its dharma (sva-dharma).[18]

Considering the three components of culture—human nature, knowledge systems, and the environment—the culture’s knowledge systems must be dharmic and they must guide humans toward dharma. It is dharma that elevates the culture to sattva or reality. And it is dharma that prevents the destruction of nature.[19]

If a knowledge system like democracy, empirical science, etc., does not have such a dharma, the people resort to adharma or animal life. That adharmic life is the life of greed that destroys nature.

If a knowledge system does not have a set of principles (dharma) to prevent the destruction of nature, it is not innocent. It is not aloof from blame as scientists claim to be. It is irresponsible and complicit in the destruction. A knowledge system must guide humanity with a dharma that prevents overexploitation of nature or else it is useless.[20]

A culture’s knowledge systems combine to create either a true or false culture.

When a cultural element contributes to imbalance, that is evidence of a false contribution.

The Theory of Evolution

After Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species (1859), scientists became increasingly interested in the impact of the environment on species. Hence, many, especially biologists and anthropologists, are concerned with human adaptation to nature.

In simple terms, Darwin’s theory is based on natural selection, caused by life’s requirement to survive, and thus adapt to environmental change.[21]

Adaptation to ensure survival has the appearance of a good motivation for a species, but equating life with survival is limiting. The Vedāntic model of three basic life qualities—survival (sat),[22] knowledge (cit), and enjoyment (ānanda)—is more realistic.[23]

Certainly, evolutionists and biologists have given much evidence that an essential part of life is survival, but they have not proven that the pursuit of knowledge and enjoyment is subordinate to survival.[24]

The interactions of those three expressions or motivations may be infinite for all practical purposes. Those infinite combinations can show how the evolution of species becomes more complex, not just adaptive to environmental conditions.[25]

Considering that, it is not useful for scientists to view societies only through the lens of survival. Doing so often prejudices historians, anthropologists, and others when they examine the technology of a culture to see how advanced it has become in survival.

Instead, cultures should be examined based on the three fundamental qualities, not just the one.[26] Moreover, that examination must be within the context of nature. When a culture’s unique combination of survival, knowledge, and enjoyment acts well within nature, the culture may be understood to be well-developed.

When the three fundamentals of life combine within a culture to destroy and overexploit nature, such a culture causes imbalance to its ecosystem and dies or diminishes due to the superior force of nature.

Therefore, cultural “evolution” or development must not be measured on survival alone. It must be considered properly developed when it can achieve balance within its ecosystem. In other words, a culture’s expression of the three life qualities—survival, knowledge, and enjoyment—must be in balance with nature.

Even if one considers survival to be the core motivation of evolution, human development should still be indexed to human-ecosystem balance, not to any less natural feature, like economy, political power, human rights, poverty, etc.

Cultural Ecology

In 1955, Julian Steward, in his Theory of Culture Change, introduced the term cultural ecology. His theory described culture in terms of “subsistence activities and economic arrangements.”

As explained above, problems arise when anthropologists view culture only in terms of survival.

Therefore, the Vaiṣṇava definition of cultural ecology is different from Steward’s.

Modern scientists are limited to empirical evaluations. Culture is comprised of myriad non-empirical elements like human behavior and knowledge systems. Thus, empiricists are limited in their conclusions. And, when they wish to apply the results of their observations to another culture, they are trying to integrate foreign non-empirical values into a non-empirical entity. That is outside the scope of their disciplines.

The key word here is values. They do not easily assimilate into humanism or any other popular ideology contrary to the attempts of some.

At minimum, values arise from a combination of the three qualities of life guided by knowledge systems[27] and molded by the infinite influences imposed by nature.[28] When attempting to move values from one culture to another to guide it toward greater balance, an empiricist will have serious problems. The empiricist does not truly understand the non-empirical origin of the values, or their destination, being another non-empirical culture.

When a culture, like modern culture, is out of balance with its ecosystem,[29] empiricists are of little use when attempting to correct the imbalance.

Therefore, Vaiṣṇava cultural ecology must be accepted on an equal footing with empirical sciences even though it is not entirely based on empirical methods. It determines the proper relationships between modern cultures and nature. So, it must have the power to make cultural adjustments accordingly.[30] And its acceptance by the scientific community is essential, since without it, modern culture is in danger of losing much, including its sciences.

Reality

A culture’s truth or material reality is explained by the combination of its internal components acting within nature. Those components are human behavior and knowledge systems, which have their own epistemologies not necessarily congruent with empiricism.

For example, although technologies arise from modern science, which is empirical, the use of technologies is typically based on human sentiment or attachment to feelings and desires. The reality that is created by such use is often destructive to the environment. As a result, in general, scientists ally with business and political interests to correct the imbalance. In doing so, an empirical system, science, partners with two non-empirical systems—business and politics, which are in part based on unreasonable human desires to overexploit natural resources.

Thus, modern science, as a knowledge system, proves its ineffectiveness in guiding humanity. Such proof is supported by the lack of evidence of a complete solution for environmental destruction.

In contrast, traditional Vaiṣṇava varṇāśrama society can be investigated due to its greater balance with nature, proving itself to be a true or natural culture.

If humanity continues to significantly destroy its environment, scientists will not be able to avoid responsibility and claim immunity from blame.

The public is led to believe that science is based on evidence—truth is proven by evidence. However, the evidence shows that sciences have partnered with governments and businesses that are creating serious imbalances between humans and their ecosystems.

That proves the irresponsibility of empirical science or at least of scientists.

Therefore, establishing the science of Vaiṣṇava cultural ecology is the responsible direction.

[1] Empirical means observational, meaning a science that limits its understanding of the world by observing it is empirical. Such sciences either reserve judgement on anything that cannot be observed, or they discount it.

[2] Theory of Culture Change by Julian Steward, 1955; Frake, Charles O. (1962), “Cultural Ecology and Ethnography,” American Anthropologist; Marietfa L. Baba, (1995), “The Cultural Ecology of the Corporation,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.

[3] Here, human behavior means the basic functions shared with animals like eating, sheltering, mating, etc., yet unrefined by any system of knowledge. A knowledge system defines reality, an ideal, or methods of function effectively in the world. The environment means material nature. The objective of this paper is not to introduce God or spirituality. Instead, the intent is to attack modern science and culture based on direct observation of society’s relation to nature. The purpose for doing so is to establish the superiority of Viṣṇu-centered culture—Vaiṣṇava culture.

[4] “Some scholars argue that it is not appropriate to apply the term religion to non-Western cultures.” See Dubuisson, Daniel (2007). The Western Construction of Religion: Myths, Knowledge, and Ideology. Thus, I argue that religion does not necessarily mean faith in God. At minimum, it means the set of codes given to humans to live in the world properly. It is more appropriate to categorize it with the other systems of knowledge that influence societies. That will be made more apparent as this article progresses.

[5] Religions, ideologies, superstitions, and philosophies generally place importance on non-empirical evidence to form their truths. In some cases, evidence may be observational or empirical. However, since their epistemologies are not fully empirical, they are called non-empirical.

[6] No culture in the Kali-yuga has been proven to operate perfectly; however, a culture must have reasonable balance with nature to be considered viable.

[7] According to the analysis of Ernst Mayr, noted biologist, “Every species is fertile enough so that if all offspring survived to reproduce, the population would grow.” [Author’s note: Species overexploit nature if left unchecked. In the case of humans, an unchallenged top predator, it is the duty of their knowledge systems to guide and restrict them.]

[8] In Sanskrit, sat means true.

[9] The dictionary definition of sat is true or real. Asat is untrue or false. (Monier Williams) Also, SB 5.5.30, synonyms and BG 17.28 synonyms.

[10] Following is a simple translation of BG 17.26-28: “The word sat is used in relation to the Supreme and the knowers of Brahman (sādhus). Thus, sat is used in performing all auspicious activities. What is permanent in sacrifice, austerity, and charity, is called sat. Any work dedicated to the Lord (sat) is called sat. However, faithless sacrifice, charity, or austerity is asat—false or useless.” Prabhupāda’s translation of BG 17.26-28: “The Absolute Truth is the objective of devotional sacrifice, and it is indicated by the word sat. The performer of such sacrifice is also called sat, as are all works of sacrifice, penance, and charity which, true to the absolute nature, are performed to please the Supreme Person, O son of Pṛthā. Anything done as sacrifice, charity, or penance without faith in the Supreme, O son of Pṛthā, is impermanent. It is called asat and is useless both in this life and the next.”

[11] Vedānta-sūtra 1.4.14, commentary by Baladeva: “Sat indicates Brahman.” Also, SB 10.88.10: tad brahma paramaṁ sūkṣmaṁ cin-mātraṁ sad anantakam, “That param-brahma (Supreme Absolute) is subtle, eternal, and pure sat.”

[12] For references to support this statement, see The Environmental Solution by Michael Wright (available on cvc.guru)

[13] The Sanskrit suffix tva means the quality of. As a suffix it is generally translated as -ness or -ity.

[14] SB 6.1.41 lecture, July 22, 1975: “Asat means which is not good or which is not eternal, or temporary. Asato mā sad gama [Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (BU) (1.3.28)]. The Vedic injunction is = don’t keep yourself in asat; come to the sat. Tamasi mā jyotir gama: don’t keep yourself in the darkness; come to the light.”

[15] Definitions from Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary, 1899.

[16] BU 1.3.28: asato mā sadgamaya | tamaso mā jyotirgamaya | mṛtyormā’mṛtaṃ gamaya, “From asat, lead me to sat; from ignorance, lead me to the light; from the path to death, lead me on the path to liberation.”

[17] SB 7.9.8 lecture, Feb 15, 1976: “So this ugra-karma, formerly this ugra-karma was entrusted to the demons. Those who were in the sattva-guṇa, they do not like this ugra-karma. Sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa, tamo-guṇa. Rajas-tamo-bhāvāḥ [SB 1.2.19].” Also, BG 16.9: “Following such conclusions, the demoniac, who are lost to themselves and who have no intelligence, engage in unbeneficial, horrible [ugra-karma] works meant to destroy the world.”

[18] See the “Dharma” article in this issue of the journal and the treatment of sva-bhāva (one’s nature) with sva-dharma (one’s dharma).

[19] SB 10.13.53 purport: “Varṇāśrama-dharma, therefore, is essential, for it can bring people to sattva-guṇa. (SB 1.2.9-19)

[20] BG 17.28: “Anything done as sacrifice, charity, or penance without faith in the Supreme, O son of Pṛthā, is impermanent. It is called asat and is useless both in this life and the next.”

[21] It is outside the scope of this paper to explain natural selection in detail. One may search for “natural selection” in Wikipedia.

[22] Here, I am equating survival with sat although the normal definition of sat is eternal existence. That is because the interaction of the three modes of nature causes the living entity to fight for survival. The motivation for that fight is that the living entity is sat, eternal existence. The living entity falsely identifies with the three modes, thus causing him to express his eternality (sat) as survival. See CC Adi 1.16 lecture, Apr 9, 1975.

[23] Sac-cid-ānanda is sat (eternal existence), cit (knowledge), and ānanda (enjoyment), the three elements of life. See Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (CC), Adi 4.61, Madhya 21.5; Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.12; BG 15.7.

[24] By subordinate, I mean they are not the result of chemicals that the living being produces. If they were chemicals, they would be subordinate to life itself. Instead, they are fundamental elements of life.

[25] Scientists have not decisively ascertained the reason for evolution from simple to complex forms. Most say that species compete with their predators resulting in an “evolutionary arms race” in which species try to become more complex than their rivals. (e.g., “Arms races between and within species,” Dawkins & Krebs, 1979). According to the model of three—survival, knowledge, and enjoyment—species are always striving to live and seek knowledge and enjoyment, causing a species to move to more complex forms. When biologists define life only in terms of survival, they have trouble arguing evolution to more complex forms. The one-element survival model has an extremely low probability, meaning it is infinitely improbable that one element can cause millions of increasingly more complex species. In contrast, the model of three elements (sac-cid-ānanda) is deterministic (not probabilistic) due to the nearly infinite combinations of three. [Note that the influence of karma, the tri-guṇas (three modes), and paramātmā, which are also factors in the evolution of a living entity, are omitted here for simplicity. One reason for that omission is to emphasize life’s essential element of enjoyment (ānanda). It is imperative for a culture’s knowledge systems to manage enjoyment. Modern enjoyment is based on greed, which in turn destroys nature.]

[26] Knowledge and enjoyment are fundamental elements in the relationship between humans and their ecosystem. If either their knowledge or enjoyment systems impel humans to destroy nature, those systems must be repaired. Some cultures have healthy systems, and some do not.

[27] In the case of Vaiṣṇava culture the knowledge system is Vaiṣṇava-vedānta. Its śāstras guide people in varṇāśrama society to live in greater balance with nature than in modern society.

[28] This statement is a nod toward the influences of the three modes and karma.

[29] The assertion here is that modern global culture, basically European derived culture, has become seriously out of balance with its environment. Its overexploitation results in destruction, pollution, and depletion of nature and its resources. For example, see footprintnetwork.org and “The destruction of nature threatens the world economy. It’s time to outlaw it as a serious financial crime,” Midori Paxton, United Nations Development Programme.

[30] If governments are funding their militaries to defend against the aggression of foreign powers, they must spend even more to ensure cultural balance with nature. That is because the threat imposed by nature to a society that is out of balance is greater than that of foreign armies. If modern society continues to destroy its environment, that will result in a strong, possibly overwhelming reaction from nature even causing an extinction of humanity according to some. Thus, for example, in the United States, the science of cultural ecology should be funded with at least one trillion dollars yearly (based on the military budget according to usaspending.gov). That money will not only be used to correct the superficial aspects of imbalance by reducing the carbon footprint, healing lands, and cleaning bodies of water, but also for the more difficult and costly task of changing cultural values by redirecting the knowledge and enjoyment systems of the culture.