Egalitarian Envy - the text of an Article I published many, many years ago on an old website. I am re-presenting it here as I believe it to be of relevance to contemporary matters in this eventful year 2020
Gonzalo Reflections on Egalitarianism
Section 1 : Egalitarianism - an Idol of the Marketplace
This is was my thinking some twenty-five years ago on Egalitarianism, stimulated by a very interesting book called Egalitarian Envy - the Political Foundations of Social Justice, by Gonzalo Fernandez de la Mora, translated by Antonio T. de Nicolas, Paragon House Publishers, 1987, New York.
This is a book that it seemed to me was likely to have aroused strong feelings in the reader, feelings of revulsion, feelings both of appreciation and of disapprobation. Much of what de la Mora said made excellent sense to me and was in line with my understanding of Buddhist principles. However, good though I thought he was in identifying the roots of envy, was I convinced that he had truly exposed the bases of egalitarianism? Whether or not one regards his thesis as true will depend upon a purely spiritual perception. What we can say however is that nothing de la Mora says departs from conclusions which common sense might draw given a certain amount of life-experience, some familiarity with literary tradition, and powers of clear reasoning.
Introduction
In the September 1995 issue of Golden Drum, journal of what was known as the Western Buddhist Order / Trailokya Bauddha Mahasangha, (now Triratna Buddhist Order and Community), there appeared a short, vehement and pithy article entitled The Idols of the Marketplace written by Sangharakshita. The title of that article refers to an apercu of the 17th Century British philosopher and mystic Sir Francis Bacon, who famously spoke of "idols imposed by words on the understanding" - and these he called "idols of the marketplace". It was Sangharakshita's aim, as was that of the logical positivists of the early 20th Century, to point out to as wide an audience as possible, words and ideas that did not refer to actualities or to facts, to correct words and ideas that did not refer to true and realisable phenomena, or to phenomena as they really and truly are. In that article in Golden Drum, Sangharakshita encouraged the pulverisation of egalitarianism. He considered it the companion of democratisation and feminization in the world marketplace of modern ideas and attitudes.
We may wish to think this matter through for ourselves, of course - to consider carefully whether we ourselves think Sangharakshita's take on the matter is true and therefore a guide to positive action. Is it really the case that egalitarianism is an idol, moreover an idol based on envy and jealousy? To go more deeply into this question, I will be drawing upon material in a book called Egalitarian Envy - The Political Foundations of Social Justice by Gonzalo Fernandez de la Mora, translated by Antonio T. de Nicolas. The book was originally published by Paragon House Publishers, New York, in 1987 and re-issued by iUniverse.com in July 2000 as a 'Print on Demand' paperback.
In Egalitarian Envy, the Spanish author Gonzalo de la Mora goes to great lengths to show how Egalitarianism is related to the two ugly siblings envy and jealousy. This is surely worth investigating, since egalitarianism is so widespread nowadays. We really do need to ask ourselves whether we understand its basis, and whether the basis, whatever we may discover it to be, is one that truly human beings should espouse. The idea that we might be worshipping a false god must surely be disturbing to any citizen, any thinking man or woman, whether Buddhist or not, so it makes good sense to examine the roots of the idea more closely.
O! beware, my lord, of jealousy, It is the green-eyed monster....
With these words, one of Shakespeare's most treacherous characters, Iago, begins to sow the seeds of jealousy in Othello's heart. The jealousy which Iago intends to plant in his unfortunate victim is sexual. Jealousy is not however by any means confined to sexual matters, though sex and gender issues often provide us with paradigms for the negative emotions. Leaning once more on the Bard's genius, we find, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, the shepherd Corin, a fellow menial of Touchstone, trying to prove his integrity to his companion by denying that he harbours envy:
I earn that I eat, get that I wear, owe no man hate, envy no man's happiness, glad of other men's good, content with my harm....
By way of contrast, in Charles Churchill's satirical poem The Candidate we find the couplet:
Though by whim, envy, or resentment led They damn those authors whom they never read.
Such quotations referring to the subject of envy and jealousy could be multiplied endlessly, but these will do to remind us of the ugly siblings, if reminder is necessary. Envy, the precursor of Egalitarianism, is a negative mental state Envy is a universal affliction: it affects all human beings. So far as we know, few if any are free from it - perhaps only those who have attained that ever-flowing, ever-positive, bright and creative spiritual-cum-transcendental state which English-speaking Buddhists characterise as Awakening or Enlightenment. This Enlightenment - the supreme spiritual attainment of the human historical Buddha - is not of course to be confused with the Eighteenth Century 'Enlightenment' which may be said to have represented a naive belief in the triumph of unaided reason over the deep and often chaotic forces of nature. Jealousy is a closely-related affliction which rests on the belief that someone else is taking, using or enjoying, without my consent, what I consider is mine. Since we are human beings, negative mental states of this sort may arise at any time, so we need to be forewarned and forearmed. We need to be able to identify these negative mental states the moment they begin to arise, if we want to dispel them before they can proliferate in thought, break out in speech or erupt into action. If we already have a highly-developed ethical sensitivity, accurately naming unskilful mental-cum-emotional events might not be so necessary, but in the absence of such spiritual intuition, naming them will be a helpful first step in recognising it and dealing with them. In the case in point, we need to learn to identify, distinguish and separate these two closely-related shifty characters called envy and jealousy that creep around in a darkness well-nigh impenetrable - the darkness of our own all-too-human minds.
Section 2 : Definitions of Envy and Jealousy
Envy and Jealousy defined - or described
One way of getting to grips with a difficult and elusive phenomenon is to attempt to define or describe it. This need not distort the phenomenon, provided one remembers that all words are metaphors - 'fingers pointing'. Such attempts at definition help at least to narrow down and focus our field of study. The following definitions of envy and jealousy, only very slightly edited, are gleaned from Collins’ and Webster’s dictionaries: Envy: (i) a grudging or somewhat admiring discontent aroused by the possessions, achievements, or qualities of another (ii) desiring to have for oneself something possessed by another; covetousness (iii) the feeling of being envious (of a person or thing). [via Old French from Latin invidia, from invidere, to eye maliciously]. Jealousy: (i) suspicion or fear of being displaced by a rival; intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness: a jealous lover. (ii) hostility towards a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage; resentfulness or vindictiveness towards someone, esp. through envy: a child jealous of his brother. (iii) possessiveness and watchfulness in the maintenance or protection of something: jealous of one’s reputation. (iv) disposition to suspect rivalry or unfaithfulness, a distrustful watchfulness. (v) apprehensiveness concerning the loss of another’s exclusive devotion. (vi) [obsolete except in biblical use]: demanding exclusive loyalty: a jealous God.
Despite their shared element of meaning, envy and jealousy are not close synonyms and can rarely be interchanged without loss of precision or alteration of emphasis or even of basic meaning. Envy refers to a coveting of something, (such as riches or attainments) which are acknowledged as belonging to another, or of something such as success or good luck that has come to another. Such envy may entail an urgent, even a malicious desire to see the other dispossessed: "Some envious hand has sprinkled ashes just to spoil our slide", or it may be no more than a mild innocuous coveting : "We are all envious of your new coat". Jealousy on the other hand refers to intolerance of a rival over possession of what one regards, rightly or wrongly, as peculiarly one's own property or due. It may entail intensely zealous efforts to keep exclusively to oneself what one treasures and to prevent others from enjoying it in any way. The term is sometimes used supposedly without derogation: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me ... for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God". But more often it carries a strong implication of distrust, suspicion, extreme enviousness, anger or hatred: "stabbed by a jealous lover"; "a jealous rage". So we see that according to some widely-respected dictionaries, envy is an emotion which arises when one perceives what one considers oneself as not possessing - i.e. the personality and supposed possessions, mental or material, of another person, whilst jealousy is an emotion directed against those whom one perceives as endangering what one considers oneself as already possessing or what one considers should be one’s own.
Section 3 : Clarification of Values
Why investigate envy, jealousy and egalitarianism?
The investigation of jealousy and envy might seem an unattractive thing to do. What point might there be in such an investigation? Well, since egalitarianism is so pervasive nowadays and the assumption of its value so often unquestioned, we really do need to understand its causes and its effects. We need to clarify what value, if any, we are to ascribe to egalitarianism. No wise man or woman would want to act in accordance with an attitude or belief the basis of which was unknown and uninvestigated. That would be to act in ignorance.
Envy translates fairly directly the Sanskrit word irsya, and this term is found in the lists of negative or unskilful mental states enumerated by the main schools of Buddhism. Dwelling on mental states which are unwholesome, reactive, uncreative and ethically unskilful - giving them outward expression or harbouring them inwardly - is well understood by Buddhists as being a powerful contributory factor to the experience of pain and suffering. Moreover, in the absence of the cultivation of more positive and noble mental states, negative ones may take root in one's own mind. It is therefore worth pointing out right from the start that envy and jealousy are usually given short shrift in Buddhism.
Finding them sprouting in his mind, the response of the Buddhist is to uproot them as a gardener would uproot a virulent weed from a bed of beautiful flowers. The only worthy motive in dwelling on such phenomena can be to penetrate to their root cause or causes and to remove them finally and completely from the repertoire of mental states that one entertains and cultivates.
Our task - the determination of the truth
We also need to be mindful that our task is to determine whether it is true that egalitarianism is rooted in envy and jealousy, and be prepared to act in accordance with our freshly-emerging understanding. If egalitarianism does turn out to be rooted in envy and jealousy, whatever our feelings might have been concerning the widespread modern belief that all human beings are equal, and that it is only people who make them unequal, we will be obliged in the interests of truth to reconsider and to re-evaluate some very basic, very far-reaching personal and private as well as social and public attitudes.
Positive Discrimination
What used to be known in more frank, outspoken though crude and insensitive times as 'ranting on behalf of the underdog' has found public expression and approval nowadays in the form of 'positive discrimination'. The high are to be brought down, or, at least, lower, and the lowly elevated. All are to be made equal, for are we not equal by right?
Such an attitude goes almost unquestioned today; to question it is immediately to provoke suspicion and even hostility. Here we need to recognise that the alternative to egalitarianism is not necessarily elitism. Buddhism, for instance, does not uphold systems of class and caste with all their iniquities. A person's worth is to be measured by their actions; both by their manifest sensibilities and by their wise and compassionate activity and not by their social status, however widely or popularly accorded. If therefore we find the arguments against egalitarianism worthy and cogent, those of us who have lived through the latter part of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first will be unable to regard contemporary human society in quite the same way as before.
The power of the idea
The idea of egalitarianism is a potent one. Sustained exposure to any idea, especially one which claims to embody an understanding of man's true nature, tends to impress itself upon us, to take root in our minds and grow. In ancient times (and even in relatively recent times historically speaking), men and women were burned at the stake in their thousands and tens of thousands for propagating dangerous ideas. Of course, such treatment of other human beings was nothing short of bestial, but it is not impossible to understand why it occurred. Ideas are revolutionary, and the last thing greedy and fearful human beings want is violent revolution.
Compassion the response to fear
In the absence of true spiritual vision, we cherish notions, views and opinions which seem to support our favoured world views. We may even in our worst moments detest and wish to destroy those who appear to undermine them. Ignorant and biased views, however superficially attractive they might appear, do not help us. A vision of the real truth, on the other hand, not only liberates us from falsehood but also helps us to understood others' point of view even if they do not yet see what we ourselves may see, clearly and directly with our own eyes. Seeing that there lies beneath the limpid surface of a beautiful lake nothing but a sandy bottom, pebbles and little fish, one can only regard with compassion those who believe that there are flesh-eating monsters lurking somewhere in its depths.
Section 4 : The Nature of Envy
Classical Sources and Modern Usage
From this point on we shall be considering how egalitarianism might be related to envy by reference to its usage in times past. Reference to the past and the ways in which human life proceeds and how it has been described often gives us clues to understanding the present. We shall then be in a better position to investigate the fundamental question of whether the phenomenon of egalitarianism is indeed rooted in envy and also, perhaps, in jealousy.
Large numbers of philosophers, poets, orators and statesmen have spoken about envy. In his book Egalitarian Envy, the author Fernando Gonzalez de la Mora (hereafter in this article referred to mostly as DLM) considers the Presocratics and the early Romans, the Saints Jerome and Augustine, Marx and Freud, Kant and Schopenhauer and a considerable number of others. He also presents a typology of envy which is somewhat complex and which we will utilise in its broad outlines. Early on in the first section of his book, DLM cites the great Latin poet Ovid. He reckons Ovid’s Envy "the most repulsive figure of Graeco-Latin mythology" and his verses "the most damning poetic sentence on any passion.…" DLM offers us this prose summary of one of Ovid’s poems, which is so striking as to be worth quoting at least in part:
The residence of Envy, spattered with black pus, is at the end of a pit, empty of sun, where the air does not reach, sad, flooded by an inert cold, lacking fire and covered with fog. The heroic Minerva, who [commands] fear in battle, as soon as she reached there stopped at the door, for she was forbidden to enter; she tapped it with the tip of her spear and it opened. She saw Envy inside devouring the flesh of vipers, the food of her vices, and she cast her eyes aside. Envy rose slowly from the ground as she let the half-eaten bodies of the snakes fall off her, and moved forward with dying steps. As soon as she saw the goddess Minerva, dressed with her weapons and so beautiful, she cried with mourning gestures. Her face was pale, her whole body appeared emaciated, her gaze was always to the side, the teeth of pale oxide; her breasts flowered bile, her tongue was dripping poison, and smiled only at the sight of pain. She never slept; she always lay awake with multiple cares, and suffered deeply at the successes of men. She devoured and devoured herself....
DLM explores, in the course of sixty pages, scores of literary attempts to define envy and we find him rejecting most of them as hopelessly inadequate. They are inadequate because, interesting and entertaining though they are from an historical and literary point of view, they do not point convincingly to the true nature and origin of the phenomenon of envy. Why has society not banished envy? It is curious, given that envy is so ubiquitous, that so little critical investigation of it has been done. Why has so little attention been given to the means of overcoming it? After all, isn’t it fairly obvious that (1) envy is a condition of human nature and (2) that envy is an evil? Since this poisonous emotion has such far-reaching implications for individual and collective happiness, we might suppose that the reason for the lack of overt attention can only be a lack of will to deal with the matter. One might imagine that silence on the stage in the presence of Envy shows an understandable aloofness on the part of those who are envied. Then again, it may well be that the silence is hiding a less lofty motivation on the part of the ugly sister and her sympathisers.
Section 5 : De la Mora's Analysis of Envy
A Typology of Envy
DLM places envy in its psychological and even pathological context, and provides us with a typology of envy. He points out that human beings are a mixture of reason and emotion and that emotion being what it is (i.e. according to him, of the nature of the passions, self-serving) it is bound to be opposed to what he calls the logos, ‘the language of the angels’. Furthermore, since reason is so weak in most people, the result of this imbalance is bound to be the predominance of the dark, selfish forces, particularly, in this case the predominance of envy as a force in human society. DLM suggests that ideally, pure, adamantine reason or the logos, devoid of emotion, should be the helmsman keeping one’s little ship of selfhood on course.
It is positive emotion that eradicates envy
Good though it is, the argument of DLM's above is not entirely satisfying in that it fails to take into account the need for the positive emotions. Few presumably would deny that we are emotional, even primarily emotional beings. But to suggest that such a state of affairs is lamentable and bound to result in inveterate selfishness is to ignore one of the most striking aspects of human beings: their ability to empathise with and to befriend other human beings, to act with great unselfishness for the good of one’s fellow men, and to co-operate in the pursuit of an ideal. Feelings of this kind eradicate envy; they can be powerfully positive, amounting at times to faith, a powerful emotion that is the response of the highest in us to what is highest in the universe.
Three Main Kinds of Envy
DLM now unfolds an unsavoury vista of the many different kinds of envy. According to his schema, envy may be (a) existential (b) social or (c) patrimonial - corresponding to a person being envied for (a) his qualities, (b) his social position or (c) his possessions. Existential envy, grounded in the conviction that the other is happier because he is more intelligent, energetic, capable, elegant etc, is, according to DLM, uncommon. However it can, he says, become extremely damaging if it is not deactivated through clear reasoning, for it affects "the very essence" of the envious person. Here of course, we need to bear in mind that Buddhists are not essentialists; the Buddha saw the truth of anatta – of always-changing selfhood. But according to DLM, social envy arises dependent upon the belief that others are happier because of the position they occupy in the community due to birth or promotion. It may be a "collective emotion" aimed at a whole group, social class or social level. Sometimes express associations are formed of people who coincide in envying the same superiors. This class of envy is primary, and is felt daily, says DLM. Patrimonial envy arises out of greed or appetite for things. It is the most vulgar, and is actively and shamelessly encouraged by the consumer society. Existential envy is born from pride, which, DLM says, underlies the feeling of personal inferiority. Inasmuch as, from the Buddhist perspective, what is called pride (mana) is recognised as the emotion underpinning belief in separate egohood, wherever pride is provoked or pricked by a perceived superiority there will be an accompanying feeling of loss of status, that is to say of inferiority. Social envy, according to DLM hardly less basic than existential envy, is born from the desire for power, and it exists "in pure form", we are told, in some politicians. Apparently it is usually joined with existential envy and even more to patrimonial envy. Since envy cannot be directly acknowledged (as the source of one’s polemics against the envied), it needs and seeks a covert legitimisation that usually appears as an egalitarian ideology, with charity or justice as fronts. While individual envy may be simply secret, collective envy must be hypocritical. Here we are approaching the crux of the matter.
Section 6 : The Rationale - Axiophile Envy
The Rationale of Envy
De la Mora confronts what he calls the ‘conceptualization’ – better, the rationale, of envy. Here some original thinking on the subject emerges. He starts by pointing out that for something to be envied, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) the ‘something’ must be perceived as valuable, and (2) it must be seen as belonging to someone other than oneself. This negative emotion is therefore an ‘intentional feeling’ - a feeling that one reasons oneself into – a feeling that is reached only after arriving at and sustaining a value-judgement rather than a fact. Moreover, this value-judgement may degenerate into a habitual mode of thinking. Furthermore, it is inferiority of performance that engenders a wish to appropriate what is mistakenly seen as essentially external or extrinsic to oneself. This inferiority gives rise to a thirst for power - the power to appropriate, or to devour. DLM says, quoting the psychologist Adler: ‘Where there is thirst for power and superiority, [it is] frequently the case that envy will appear’. This perception of inferiority will naturally give rise to the desire to ‘neutralise’ the discomfiture, a desire which finds expression in psychologically healthy individuals as a wish to achieve the best in one’s own performance, i.e. emulation. But envy, DLM says, aims at suppressing the pain of envy by bringing down or ‘breaking’ other people. In the envious person there is no desire to be ‘more’, but the wish to render the one who is apparently happier, more skilful or more blessed less fortunate than they presently appear to be. There is in such an attitude no will either to improve oneself or to help others, but rather to level all.
Axiophile Envy
Now comes a crucial part of DLM’s argument – the presentation of what he calls axiophile envy, axiophilia being the manipulation of value-judgements. We may note here that the clear distinguishing of facts from value-judgements is a spiritual excercise requiring deliberate development and therefore not found fully present in every person. DLM suggests that the envious person poses – perhaps at first innocently - the question: ‘How is it that the Good appears disagreeable me?’ And after inadequate reflection, the envious person then takes refuge in a spurious solution that he has 'discovered'. Here DLM points out a very important fact: the real ‘object’ of envy is not a Good or the Good. No wrong is actually discovered in the envied person. What is really found objectionable is the unacceptable impotence experienced when contemplating the superior degree of performance or of enjoyment, supposed or actual, of others. However, the envious person typically attempts to exonerate his or her own self-assessed inferiority by specious reasoning. A topsy-turvy view DLM suggests that the reasoning of the resentful and envious person proceeds in such a way as not only to nullify what has been established by the good, the generous and the wise as a positive value, but also to transpose it into a negative value. Nietzsche called this desperate last stand of frustrated emotion an umvertung, a German neologism that can be rendered not merely as 'revaluation' or 'reassessment' as the dictionary rather parsimoniously suggests, but as a ‘turning upside down’. The phenomenon is rather like what is known to Buddhists as a viparyasa: an ‘upside-down or topsy-turvy view’ entertained by the deluded mind. Envy developed or sustained in this sort of way is explained by DLM as the painful emotional accompaniment of a chain of weak and wrongful argumentation or sophistic reasoning concerning the possessions or attributes of others.
Section 7 : Various Kinds of Envy
The Universality of Envy
The universality of envy engages DLM’s attention next. The existence of the story of Cain and Abel in the Book of Genesis suggests to him that envy is there at the beginnings of humanity. However, he argues that the case for the all-pervasiveness of envy rests not so much in the biological sphere (which is presumably, for him, 'the created' - ultimately God being responsible for that) but in the intellectual sphere, i.e. in that which belongs properly, even exclusively, to man. It is interesting, incidentally, that here DLM seems to imply that the Book of Genesis is concerned with the creation of biological man and not with the creation of intellectual or spiritual man. Perhaps such matters pose insuperable problems for DLM's Christian conscience. Whether that is the case or no, he moves on to a more universalist viewpoint, saying that envy lies in the very structure of the mind - in the need to compare and contrast. This ‘confrontational procedure’ [with the ‘object’] is basic to human knowledge, he suggests. The innate tendency to relative judgements becomes envy, however, only when the subject is unable to overcome or assimilate the implications of his observed and relative inferiority, and do something creative about it. This quantum of envy is minimal in some, whilst in others, according to DLM, it is ‘immense, central, and enduring.’
Other kinds of Envy - Hidden Envy
DLM suggests that envy could well be symbolized by a mask. He sees two reasons for this. The first is tactical: in envy lies the wish to act so as to remove the envied possession from the envied person. Society however does in fact allow individuals to possess things which not everyone possesses; society allows for differences. Envy must therefore hold itself in check so as not to be seen as anti-social. If however the envious person can present himself as charitable or just in criticism of the envied person or their possessions, the deceptively expressed or masked motivation will be deemed not socially unacceptable and may achieve its aim. Within the other motivation for the suppression of unmistakable public expressions of envy lies not only its ‘secret’ but also its self-deception, says DLM. The stirring of envy in one’s heart ‘involves an interior judgement which demeans the self without there being any accompanying excuse or positive value.’
Envy is totally mean and negative: there can be no possible value in suffering because of the happiness of others or in rejoicing in their (subsequent) misfortunes if and when they occur. Envy is so repulsive that whoever harbours it tries to keep it hidden even from himself. Envy, DLM says, appears as ‘the most intellectual’ of our emotions, because its origin lies in reasoning, though in reasoning based on false premises.
Confusing Envy
DLM now turns to ‘confusing envy’. He points out that though envy may not be made public, this does not mean that it finds no expression. The envious person pretends to ignore the goods, position or qualities of the envied person. Envious minorities – [and majorities, one might add] - usually translate their envy into a conspiracy of silence. They attempt elimination by ostracism, which is envy disguised as contempt. It is one of the black arts employed to destroy the envied. An ‘activist’ twist can be given to this negative emotion too. DLM suggests that: ‘a pejorative intention covers all .... judgements [of the envious person]: if [the] thought [of the envied person] is deep it is ‘obscure’, if true it is ‘dull’, if brilliant it is ‘an exaggeration’, if devastating it is ‘sophistic’, if convincing it is ‘dialectical’, if exact it is ‘incomplete’, if beautiful it is ‘not rigorous’’; and, one might add, if passionately engaged in, it is ‘polemical’. This tendency to carping criticism is pathological and seems increasingly widespread, especially in the media. Its proliferation would appear to be evidence of increasing cynicism concerning the possibility or actuality of human excellence. No-one can possibly be wholly or even largely good and wise: each person is equally a mixture of good and evil, of ethical states of mind and unethical states of mind. Therefore, where good is in evidence, there must also be bad. Thus the thinking goes.
The will of the envious person is servile Buddhism sees this attitude and its underlying basis as rooted in spiritual ignorance - consisting in this case of lack of faith in the possibility or actuality of spiritually developed individuals. It can be counteracted by the practice of ‘Rejoicing in Merits’. So long as carping criticism persists, one remains subject to envy and unable really to appreciate the good in others. The will of the envious person is unable to shift from the intention to downgrade or debase whatever is good and even great. It is a servile will, says DLM – a will enslaved to negative emotions and wrong ideas. This is very much the Buddhist view, which is realistic as well as idealistic. As DLM rightly says ‘Instead of bringing light and [true] interpretation, [the emotion of envy] darkens, falsifies, and distances [itself from] reality.’
Prefabricated Envy
Aristotle, de la Mora says, considered that envy was principally directed towards relatives, neighbours and colleagues. DLM may well be right in suggesting that today the poison of envy is spread more widely than of old. The media, he says, especially emphasize differences, intentionally selecting and mystifying them, tending to direct envy to those who are distant and different. This envy is not only directed towards others never seen, but is grounded in value judgements provided by outsiders, who assure us that others are happier, thereby implying a diminution of our own happiness. In this way, DLM suggests, envy promoted by preachers of egalitarianism has extended in scope and intensity ever since the eighteenth century. Envy, says DLM, is aroused against ghostly rivals; one is persuaded to envy ‘the rich’, or ‘the elitists’, for example. Thus, envy is often, nowadays, 'prefabricated'.
Section 8 : The Evil Eye and Politics
The Psychopathology of Envy
Gonzalez de la Mora points out that envy carries its own self-punishment, being inseparably linked to painful feeling. But uneasiness is also provoked in those who are envied, he says. He points out that not knowing when and how envy may manifest is the ‘evil eye’, which makes the person who is conscious that he may be envied particularly uncomfortable, with a discomfort ranging from simple uneasiness to complete paralysis. DLM seems here to be extending his sympathy towards the envied rather indiscriminately, and one wonders whether this is always appropriate. Both moral and immoral individuals may be apparently happy and envied. Someone who feels oppressed by envy may be enjoying ill-gotten gains and be suffering from a guilty conscience. The moral person, on the other hand, whilst we may imagine him or her not completely immune from the depredations of the evil eye, might be experiencing a pure, unsullied happiness and not feel oppressed to quite the same extent or for the same reasons. They might feel oppressed by no more than the general vicissitudes of being a member of the human race.
Envy is of no value
DLM points out that envy is essentially ‘dysfunctional’. It performs none of the useful functions of ‘the logos’. In no way does it tend towards a positive resolution, a presence or a climax. It does not even, he says, serve to bring about something the envious person might presumably wish - joy at the suffering of others - for envy disappears as soon as the happiness or good fortune of others disappears. Envy is also ‘mistaken’, for the envious person turns his back on rigorous thought and fantasises thus: ‘If I were him and were in his social or patrimonial position, I would be happier than I am now.’ Envy is therefore both counterproductive in that it prevents resolution of the subjective problem of differences actual and perceived, and superfluous in that it does not serve any useful purpose. It is based on errors of fact, judgement and deduction, and the stringing together of hypotheses that sustain feelings of negativity towards others.
Envy as a Political Factor
Envy, says DLM – and this does not surprise us - also enters into politics. Healthy, positive impulses of solidarity and emulation of the best occur naturally in society, he says, but they do not serve the interests of politicians, who are all too often those who thrive on division, polarization and conflict. The governed are divided, he suggests, because politicians seek to divide them. The emotion of envy distances and divides the supposedly inferior in happiness from the supposedly superior. Envy does not inspire healthy rivalry and emulation of the best; rather it fosters incompatibility and loneliness. Moreover it sets up an alliance by which those who share common envies can express negative emotion against the envied. Recollection and observation of all-too-common and highly unsavoury instances of the casting of aspersions, disparagement and undermining, devaluation, discredit and calumny – all entered into by the envious group in a spirit of aggression and expropriation – supports this contention.
Envy as 'Social Justice'
‘Social Justice’ is the contemporary disguise of politicians, whose nature is to divide and rule, says DLM. They promote ‘social justice,’ for, the argument goes, does it not follow that ‘the more just a society is, the more equal its members are in opportunities, position and wealth’? This egalitarianism, DLM says, is the opiate of the envious - and politicians are the self-interested distributors of its massive consumption. Only in the United States, apparently, is the decisive factor in political confrontation not envy. This is hard to credit, since human beings are similar in essentials everywhere. DLM considers that in America, the impulse to emulate surpasses envy on such occasions. 'Social justice' (so-called), he suggests, however, cannot be entirely a manifestation of envy: ‘Whoever acts justly must give to each his own.’ Be all this as it may, one need not disagree with DLM’s conclusion that ‘egalitarian’ distribution without regard for individual merit is inequality rather than justice, and that a political agenda based on a simplistic ‘social justice’ is likely to be fraudulent.
Correlations with Party Politics
When DLM looks for correlations between different political ideologies and the deliberate stirring of envy, he is not so convincing in his arguments. Probably envy pre-exists on both sides (or more) of the political fence. What is certain, however, is that the tactic of deliberately spreading envy and provoking dissatisfaction is doubly negative. The ‘conservative style’, DLM concludes, is totally opposed to envy; conservatism (for him it seems to be unquestionably a positive value) counts on emulation, competition with others, and ultimately on creativity. Probably not all would agree with this view.
Section 9 : Orthodoxy, Hierarchy and the State
Orthodox Envy and the State
DLM points out an interesting connection between egalitarianism and orthodoxy: ‘The unity of the envious imposes an orthodoxy that not only frees them from the effort to create and makes it easy to overlook the absence of creativity [in their midst], but forces those who were formerly privileged and envied.... [to agree to statements such as]: ‘Do not envy me; I am not different. I am equal to you, I believe your catechism is true, and I condemn to moral exile all those that are not members of this club.’’ This kind of thinking may be found in much communist literature. Demands by the group for orthodoxy can sometimes be a matter of life or death, as for instance in the case of Socrates. Social Development In the last sub-section of the Chapter on Envy as a Political Factor, entitled Social Development, we find some memorable aphorisms, both positive and negative. Nietzsche: ‘A country is the roundabout way Nature takes to arrive at a few great men.’ DLM: ‘The highest function of the group is to give birth to excellent individuals.’ ‘A genius’, DLM adds, ‘gives pride to family, school and nation. Mass-man does not.’ The value of a nation comes not from its numbers but its quality. The greatness of a person, he says, depends on his genetic structure (health, intellectual capacity, perseverance, etc.), his development (learning habits, and so forth) and his public recognition (social promotion and public service).
DLM’s basis of evaluation here does seem rather one-sidedly psychological and group-oriented rather than ethical and individual. Envy, he says, intervenes with increasing negativity in these social processes. ‘Envy shunts aside the intelligent, the strong and the virtuous and does not encourage their reproduction. Scholarly envy towards the best and most studious promotes laziness and loss of interest in studies; egalitarian education delays the best.’ He continues: ‘In summary, the more envy there is, the less the collective capacity to generate great men and the less the socio-biological quality of the group.’ What hope for mankind?
If what DLM says above is true, and if it is true that envy is universal, there would seem to be little hope for mankind’s ever-expanding numbers. He concludes that: ‘.... as a nation becomes modern and civilized, the negativity of envy becomes stronger.’ He believes that one of the reasons America has become so powerful is that ‘it has been able to instil a morality of emulation that neutralizes the growing possibilities of envy.’ Emulation would certainly seem to be the positive alternative to envy. Whether or not it is true that Americans are more likely or more able to choose this moral alternative than other nation-states, one need not disagree that a group bent on emulation is more likely to produce the best than a group based on envy.
Envy, Hierarchy and the State
Then follow three sub-sections concerning (a) Envy, Hierarchy and the State, (b) the Defences against envy and (c) Overcoming and suppressing envy. Concerning the first, DLM argues trenchantly for promotion of the highly intelligent to leadership levels. This looks reasonable until we reflect that intelligence is no guarantee of social conscience. He concludes the sub-section on hierarchical ordering of the State by affirming that: ‘The State defines justice but does not create it.…’ Though it may not create justice, the State certainly directs the judiciary. We may not be sure that unenlightened man can legislate for entry into the heavenly gates, but the fires of hell are stoked by unenlightened men’s ‘definition’ of justice through and by State machinery. The normative or ideal State as seen by Buddhists would encourage and educate everyone in the observance of the basic precepts of truly human behaviour, and try to ensure that the operations of the Law reflected the principles of karma - willed action and its natural results. DLM produces some memorable quotes: ‘After two hundred years of degenerative evolution’, representative democracy takes the form of parties and party rule.
Such is DLM’s view of modern democracy, and it is, arguably, a correct one, at least from the Buddhist perspective. The actual power, he suggests, lies not with the appointed leaders and chambers of deputies, but with the party oligarchy. Party rule or ‘partocracy’ vacillates, he says, between dictatorship by party oligarchy and an anarchy where there is no workable majority or coalition amongst the minorities. The truth of this statement we can safely leave to the political historians, but as Buddhists we can affirm that generally the Group as group is always wrong, and that anarchy, especially an anarchy of responsible individuals, is much to be preferred to an oligarchy of those who are wealthy merely in a worldly sense.
DLM’s conclusions concerning Envy, Hierarchy and the State begin with his casting a longing glance at ‘Anglo-Saxon’ democracy, the kernel of which he characterises as ‘The right man in the right place.’ Each man in his place according to merit is to be the ideal, and it is to be the duty of the judiciary to ensure that there are impediments to unjust favouritism or ordering based upon envy in the distribution of power and responsibility. ‘This is not just a demand of social justice and reason’, says DLM: ‘the hierarchical function of the state is the key to the progress of the human species upon this earth and in history.’ Whether the State can safely be entrusted with the keys to the heavenly gates is however a moot point, and it is doubtful whether DLM can be taken seriously here, though he could look to Hegel for theoretical support. Only a community of individuals consciously and effectively dedicated to the realisation of goodness and truth could even theoretically undertake such a responsibility.
Section 10 : Defenses and Attitudes to Envy
Defending oneself against Envy
De la Mora gives only brief consideration to the defences against envy. He proposes 'intimacy', a 'stoic isolation', disguise (on the part of those more fortunate or more powerful ones who fear envy), and 'courtesy' as possible defences. He concludes this brief section with a comment filled perhaps with bitter experience: ;Envy is the main reason that social life is a lie and that people live in ivory towers.' Overcoming and Suppressing Envy Perception of inferiority in happiness does not necessarily entail a feeling of envy. DLM is able to arrive at this conclusion by defining happiness as 'a state of being [which is] created by the satisfaction of desires.' Thus, for example, if one desires one's children to go further than oneself in some good or in the enjoyment of some happiness, one may be happy and not envious.
One might stop to wonder why DLM does not mention brothers as the potential heirs of one's unselfish goodwill. Asceticism Desire, DLM reasons, is the basic energy of human evolution. This being so, it follows, he says, that the ethics of asceticism e.g. as in the Oriental and Stoic versions, are 'radically involutive' (i.e. regressive). Here of course we can recognize DLM's classic misapprehension of Oriental 'asceticism'. In its ideal form, oriental 'asceticism' is a 'higher hedonism' rather than an unreflective, fruitless and crude cutting-off of all hedonic affects. The Buddhist aspires not so much to 'kill desire', but more pragmatically, to still the clamourings of craving. Craving is the neurotic desire to obtain more from something - from an activity, a person, or thing - than he, she or it can reasonably be expected to give. Craving traps and perverts energy and inhibits imagination Far from frustrating, by his healthy asceticism, 'the creative dynamism of nature', (see below) the Buddhist aligns himself with it by curbing the neurosis of craving in himself and redirecting to higher human purposes the energy thus liberated. He engages in the process of higher human development and his character unfolds, flower-like, in the direction of a higher type of humanity. This process has been termed by Sangharakshita the 'Higher Evolution' of Man.
Cheating envy
DLM concludes a little simplistically, but glimpsing the difficulty, that whoever does not 'desire', cuts himself off from the creative dynamism of nature. He asks: 'Does [the ascetic] escape a trap or does he cheat?' This moral question demands another volume, DLM says. But by making the all-important distinction between desire (possibly healthy) and craving (certainly neurotic), Buddhists answer this question quite straightforwardly. The Buddhist meditator not only desires to rid himself of craving, but renouncing the lesser pleasure for the greater pleasure, engages in a 'higher hedonism' - the pursuit of the innocent pleasures of meditation and contemplation, higher human culture and spiritual friendship. Not excluded from this are creative activities of various kinds such as earning money by ethical means and by intelligent co-operation with one's friends.
Three attitudes to the arising of envy
DLM continues with his argument: 'The pain at the possibility of being less happy may give rise to three main attitudes: a positive one, which includes the effort to achieve what one desires; a neutral one, which is the acceptance of our inferiority in happiness; and a negative one, which is the desire that the other lose the good we desire.' The first attitude is that of emulation, the last one is of course envy. We fall into envy out of laziness, he says - a shrewd observation. Envy comes easier at first, but one must pay a high price for such weakness. One arrives at a fork in the road, and finds three possible directions in which to proceed: to exert oneself to become more, to simulate inferiority, or to abandon oneself to envy. In suggesting that men are the product both of their inheritance and 'a desire to be more', DLM admits that all are 'self-made men' - though only, it seems to him, 'in a sense.' Here DLM comes very close to the truth. 'What one becomes,' he says, 'though conditioned by one's [inborn] abilities and capacities, depends entirely upon one's actions.' It is the desire to be more that all participate in, even the ascetic who renounces the world in order to become closer to God. 'Man has become more and more sapiens; he strives to become superman in the world and reach the heavens as blessed spirit, that is, to become an angel.' 'This is the genuine 'to be more,'' he says, for it is ontological [in line with the order of the universe].' Here DLM approaches the Buddhist vision: the 'order of the universe' is the dynamically creative one of evolving human individuality, an individuality much more richly diverse than the cramped cosmos insisted upon by dogmatic Christianity.
Section 11 - Emulation and the impulse to be more
Emulation and the impulse to be more
Here, DLM almost begins to sing: he says: 'Those gains at the disposal of humanity are the fruit of a very strong impulse, in the best members of the human race, to be more.... All that is great in history comes out of this impulse to improve one's self and others; and that is, therefore, radically unegalitarian, though it is enriching others in the long run.... A vital creative thrust weakens envy. 'Be more' is the categorical imperative of evolution, and.... also the absolute antidote of envy.' But it is not possible, always, to be a 'most'. We need to accept and to assimilate, therefore, numberless inferiorities. How? In the first place, by 'overcoming them with other superiorities'; in the second, feeling happiness at what is valuable even if it belongs to others; in the third, with a feeling of solidarity with the whole species, and finally, with sympathy.' Here surely DLM is describing the Buddhist practice of Rejoicing in Merits 'at any good deed'. How refreshing this is after the long but necessary - because cathartic - analysis of envy! Love - the misfortune of being two.
DLM's sub-section on 'sympathy' contains much valuable reflection. 'Envy', DLM says, is a 'feeling against', and its antidote is an intensely positive emotional attitude, a sympathy or 'feeling with.' DLM (or his translator) understands the difficulty with the word 'sympathy' and says that it is not to be understood in its literal sense. The antidote to encountering envy in others could hardly be said to be 'a feeling with', and if one suffers from envy oneself, one's problem is precisely that one fails to identify with the supposed happiness of the envied person. One wonders whether the author or translator knew the word 'empathy'. There are perfectly good Buddhist words for these intensely positive feelings. They are metta, or universal loving-kindness, which is the basic positive emotion, together with mudita, rejoicing in the merits of others, and karuna, or compassion. These are the real antidotes to envy. The antidote (says DLM so aptly).... is therefore to feel compassion with the one who suffers and joy with the one who rejoices. Speaking of Love as the 'ideal limit... of loving plenitude', he quotes Mallarme: 'Love is the misfortune of being two.' DLM's brief unfolding of the primary positive emotions here is admirably written, and were there more space, one would like to quote the relevant passages in full.
Section 12 : Conclusions concerning Envy
De la Mora's conclusions concerning envy
In his Chapter headed 'Conclusions' DLM recapitulates the reasoning contained in the second section of his book. Envy is the pain we feel at the happiness of others, a happiness that is seen as superior to ours and that we desire. We feel however that such happiness is unattainable by ourselves and so we cannot assimilate the perceived or supposed inequality. The cause of envy is therefore neither the desire for power nor our limited wealth; it is, rather, our lack of satisfaction based on a complex (and erroneous) reasoning. The envy of men and women today is existential, social and patrimonial, and is based, respectively, on pride, the habitual desire to emulate, and upon greed. There are both individual and also shared or 'social' forms of envy.
Envy, DLM says, is universally felt, because human beings learn through comparisons (and we are all, presumably, inferior at least in some respects, to someone else). But though the habitually envious man or woman appreciates what are called values, it pains him [or her] that people other than himself or herself possess them and are made happy by them. This fact is exploited by the politically minded, says DLM. Politicians and salesmen deliver to their would-be clientele a 'prefabricated envy' generated by 'enviable images'. Envy however does not perform one single useful function. It is not an impulse leading to justice because its hidden agenda of egalitarianism is neither realistic, altruistic nor fair, but selfish and vindictive.
Aversion to envy
The majority of people are averse to being envied for fear of the hostility of the envious, says DLM. Some have recourse to isolation, he says, thus 'walling up their area of intimacy'. This is a very interesting observation indeed, as isolation in this sense is tantamount to alienation and is thus even more likely to provoke envy. Some people, DLM says, even humble themselves and ask forgiveness of the envious. We are reminded here of those young men who, we are told, humbly accept the evaluation of themselves by some feminists as 'rapists,' simply because they are men. Envy is a deep, sterile pain; but it is one of the few that are removable. It is suffered because of mental myopia, and an 'intelligent education' may cure it, says DLM.
Education for non-envy
These conclusions of DLM's seem reasonable enough. There is nothing in them, so far as they go, with which the Buddhist need disagree in principle; DLM's main arguments and conclusions seem in accordance with the way things are. Though how 'an intelligent education' is to be secured by the individual aspiring to non-envy is a million-dollar question. More and more institutions of education nowadays seem concerned with maximising one's employability and earning power, which, so far as it goes, is not a bad thing, though it does not go very far. The Universities may of course be better, but even they will tend to lack a thorough-going moral and realist-idealist perspective together with the essential means of psycho-spiritual integration and self-development. We shall have something to say concerning Buddhism's conclusions on the topic of envy towards the end of this review. Suffice it to say here that the essence of non-envy is emulation. The fate of all excellence? Most of DLM's material up this point has been sobering indeed. Little is offered to ameliorate the impression of the general prevalence of envy or to suggest that its widespread and insidious effects can effectively be prevented. One might even suppose, did one not read further, that all excellence is fated to occultation. But from this point onwards an entirely different note is struck, and we find our interest quickened as DLM begins to examine the question of differences - the reality of inequalities.
Section 13 - Creative Inequality
Creative Inequality In the third and last section of his book Egalitarian Envy, de la Mora proposes a 'Creative Inequality'. In the two most grandiose secular temples of the West, he says - one a Doric monument dedicated to Lincoln and the other an Ionic monument dedicated to Jefferson, we find chiselled in marble a sacramental formula that seems taken from Genesis: 'All men are created equal'.' This dogma, DLM says, 'is neither true nor illuminating. The truth is that all men are born unequal and that society tries to make them equal by means of laws and customs. Inequality is the inseparable companion of freedom and of nature, and there is no equality without arbitrariness and coercion.' This statement may come as a shock to some of those who worship at these temples, and they would do well not to react unthinkingly to DLM's forthright challenge to Western, particularly American assumptions.
Critical appraisal both of this appealing, powerful, but possibly mistaken idea - and DLM's contrary assertion - is vital, since serious misunderstandings may occur by a knee-jerk reaction to either intellectual position. These misapprehen-sions, whether actual or falsely imagined, are perpetuated by what seems an almost congenital blindness in modern Western man to the fact of his own spiritual dimension. This may be characterised as a 'vertical' dimension, the dimension of the ethical and the beautiful in man's being and consciousness, which can produce in the human race a vastly greater diversity and dispersion of characteristics than most contemporary Westerners seem to be aware of or be willing to acknowledge.
Differences of creative-cum-spiritual potential in men and in women?
De la Mora is here concerned with inequalities simply 'amongst men', and to point out that, far from being a falsehood, it is a truth and a 'creative' one. By this he means that such differences are differences of creative potential and aptitude in the realization of that creative potential. Those differences are moreover also themselves creative inasmuch as they conduce to the evolution of the human species. And quite wisely, perhaps, he uses 'man' in the generic sense, i.e. as inclusive of men and of women. It is a pity, however, in view of the recent burgeoning of gender studies and feminist thinking, that DLM does not commit himself to any statements concerning sexual inequality. It would be interesting to discover what he thought about the hierarchies (both natural and contrived) that exist between men and women.
Hierarchy not 'fixed' according to Buddhism Buddhists would observe that the natural and even spiritual hierarchies that are found in human society are not something fixed and once-and-for-all. Spiritual hierarchy may appear to be 'natural' in that superiority or excellence or surpassing skill may sometimes appear to be inherent or inborn in particular remarkable individuals. But though such excellence may indeed be partly a matter of inherited abilities and characteristics, it is not granted, cultivated, imposed or sustained by group conditionings - neither by political ones nor by one's gender. Excellence is a matter of individual effort, an effort that no-one else can make on one's behalf. Even the 'natural' requires effort.
There is no doubt that individual members of mankind, both male and female, can and do develop spiritually and ascend the steps and stages of what in 'gifted' individuals has appeared 'natural'. In practice, of course, even those 'gifted' individuals have had to sustain an individual creative and spiritual effort in the course of their lives. This realisation should be the coup de grace to entrenched envy on the basis of gender. As far as we can see, there is no limit to the extent to which men and women can develop spiritually, though because of the biological, psychological and social factors by which women are conditioned, they tend at first to be at a slight disadvantage. This is a disadvantage that many women nowadays try to overcome, and often succeed in overcoming. Mutatis mutandis, many men, though possessing certain natural advantages at the beginning of their spiritual careers by comparison with most women, choose not to actualise that initial advantage, and do not develop spiritually as much as some women.
The historical preponderance of masculine creators of culture
Inasmuch as women are at something of a disadvantage vis-a-vis men at the beginning of their spiritual careers, it could be said, in accordance with DLM's reasoning, that they would - at first - be rather susceptible to envy and its consequences. For on the face of it, the disadvantages - no doubt relative rather than absolute - of femaleness as compared with maleness - have been sufficiently pronounced to show up historically in terms of women's relative under-production of acknowledged cultural masterpieces when compared with men. This cannot really be explained away by saying that this is bound to be so since men have been the privileged arbiters of culture, as well - it is said by some - as the habitual exploiters of women. After all, women too have shown wide appreciation of the literary, musical, theatrical, architectural and artistic products of men as well as the products of their own sex in these fields. But whatever reasons may be adduced for this gender difference, even a cursory examination of the culture and works of art of a nation or country affirms the preponderance of men as originators of those examples of human culture that have withstood the test of time. Excellence is not a matter of gender.
Of course, things change, and it needs to be emphasised that some women have proved themselves not only the cultural and spiritual equals of men, but in some cases their superiors. They have surpassed them, of course, as creative individuals and not as gender representatives. One excellent man does not make all men excellent, neither does one brilliant woman make all women brilliant. No 'allowances' need to be made or can be made on behalf of gender. A good poet is a good poet, regardless of their sex or gender. A brilliant singer is a brilliant singer, even if they happen to be a man! Perhaps the saddest manifestation of envy in this context would be the inability of a woman to rejoice in the real spiritual attainments of a man simply because he was a man. Looking at it the other way around, perhaps the saddest manifestation of masculinity would be the inability of a man to rejoice in the real spiritual attainments of a woman simply because she was a woman. The Buddhist tradition affirms that both men and women can follow the Buddhist path all the way to the highest kind of individuality - which is what we in the West are pleased to call Enlightenment.
Section 14 : Four Kinds of Inequality
Four kinds of Inequality
DLM observes that the idea of equality is an old illusion, and, he thinks it is stronger in Western culture than in the East. Whatever may be the facts of the matter, inequality is the general rule, and manifests in many ways. There are, he says, (1) metaphysical inequalities (2) physical inequalities, and (3) zoological inequalities. There are also (4) general human inequalities, to which he gives the headings: (a) genetic inequality (b) noetic inheritance (c) social inequality (d) vital inequality and (e) 'ultraterrestrial' inequality. Equality as a power base Somehow or other, laments DLM, so-called equality has become the power base of the most extensive social movements of our time: democracy and socialism. For this reason, merely to question the rightness of egalitarianism tends to invite opprobrium.
This widespread attempt at 'equalisation' is something that has assumed the status of a moral imperative. But there is, generally, no attempt to question its basis in objective truth. But are all members of the species 'man' equal? DLM evidently does not think so. He proceeds to examine the first three basic inequalities, which he considers to be (1) Metaphysical (2) Physical and (3) Zoological. Concrete and Abstract DLM begins with a simple twofold analysis of objects into real or concrete on the one hand, and on the other, those that exist only in the mind, i.e. abstractions. The distinction between names on the one hand and on the other, realities or actualities is an important one. Furthermore, all phenomena not only differ from all other phenomena in their particularities, but proceed to become different even from themselves. Whatever is actual or phenomenal is individual and momentary. Constant change being one of the main characteristics of the real, permanent identity is not possible; it is and must remain an abstraction.
The Buddhist vision of difference vis-à-vis Individuality
The Buddhist vision goes further: it sees not only differences but also the human Ideal. It affirms not only the actuality of profound qualitative differences in human beings but also the inconceivable and unlimited nature of true, profoundly qualitative (as contrasted with merely statistical) individuality. The denial of profound qualitative and hierarchical differences in human nature leads to the denial of the worth and of the actuality of individual human excellence and of the possibility of self-transcendence. Moreover, it makes the door to the attainment of Enlightenment more difficult of access by ignoring the actuality of higher states of consciousness and being.
Valid identity or sameness
On the other hand, DLM points out, there are valid identities affirmed by reason such as straight lines, points and so on. Absolute identity however occurs only within the mind; what realities can aspire to is 'profound similarity'. 'The mind crystallizes and simplifies that fluid multiplicity to make it manageable', DLM rightly observes. There is no more equality in the universe than the logical one imposed by the mind, and the ethical one dictated by the will. From a philosophical standpoint, equality is a mental fiction grounded in certain structural and functional similarities. Actually, whatever is real is unequal in the sense that no two things are identical, for they change; and in some way, some are superior and some are inferior to others.
Learning from 'The Elders' and 'The Best'
Glancing swiftly but penetratingly at nature seen in scientific terms, and observing the growing and seemingly interminable list of sub-atomic particles, DLM extends his intuition of inequality and incommensurability to the microcosmic level. Risking a possible misunderstanding, we can say that science reaches ultimately towards the same conclusions as those arrived at long ago by the Buddhist yogin. And turning to zoological inequality, DLM draws our attention to the fact that biological groups may be ranked in ascending degrees of complexity etc., with homo sapiens being the most evolved species, the highest and most complex tip of the zoological tree. And amongst the superior, more sociable or more successful groups of homo sapiens there are superior individuals, he says. These individuals, moreover, tend to learn - at least to begin with - from 'the elders' and 'the best', and are not therefore necessarily genetic offspring. Some individuals turn out to be 'sentinels'; others retire, others again lead. Biochemical inequality and the hierarchies that exist amongst superior vertebrates are not a degeneration or corruption, DLM insists. Indeed, Buddhism affirms that they are an outcome of natural processes and of man's individual efforts to evolve.
Section 15 : Genetics, Authority and Power
The Genetic Heritage of Man
Homing in on his fourth category, 'general human inequality', de la Mora reminds us that experience shows that our degree of intelligence strongly determines our success in life. Whether human intelligence is determined chiefly by heredity or by environment has enormous social consequences. DLM's basic argument now unfolds. 'The biological lottery', DLM says, 'is the inexorable cause of certain tragic inequalities among humans.' These inequalities would be of relatively little social impact if they belonged only to the area, for instance, of resistance to various sicknesses. There are indications, however, that the psychic makeup of individuals is also predominantly defined via the genetic code, and therefore that differences in the superior human functions are also genetically given.
The functioning of these higher human faculties may therefore be for the most part unchangeable or difficult to change. This is of course, at least for the weak-minded, a potentially depressing discovery, and one that the intellectually disadvantaged might find it difficult to countenance and overcome. Buddhism, however, recognizes and affirms the possibility not indeed simply of intellectual development but of all-round psychic development in every human being. It upholds a liberating doctrine in the face of biological determinism. To develop higher human qualities, however, we need to assess realistically what are the actual strengths and weaknesses of human character as found in particular individuals here and now.
Intelligence and the Apprehension of Universal forms
De la Mora here puts forward an interesting idea that he calls 'Noetic Inheritance'. What we call the intellect is not only the ability to perceive intently and penetratingly and to attend wholly to the raw material of our experience, but also to exercise and creatively deploy the mental processes used in thought and to think and perceive hierarchically. DLM suggests, therefore, that it is not only ordinary intelligence that is inherited, but also the higher ability or higher function of the mind to apprehend universal forms. This 'archetypal' intelligence too may be 'built-in.' There is little if anything of principle over which we would wish to take issue with DLM here.
But Buddhism again goes further. Buddhism sees that human character - keenness or dullness of perception and of human faculties at many levels - may indeed be inherited. However, change in the direction of spiritual wholeness and maturation can and does take place in individuals in the course of commitment to spiritual discipline. This of course presupposes a modicum of spiritual vision and refinement of the personality. Based on this, the aspiring individual may then commit him or herself to a path of psychic integration and higher human development. Whether all this depends more on the will to evolve rather than on the initial level of intelligence must remain a moot point.
The Authority of Knowledge, and Power
DLM's sub-section on Human Inequality concludes with an examination of social inequality, 'vital' inequality and 'ultraterrestrial' inequality. Man is a social animal and he develops in society. He is communicative, and out of this communicativeness and his need for security are formed political groupings. All political groups, DLM says, support two hierarchies, one of knowledge, and the other of power. There is the so-called power of knowledge, or power of authority. But authority in the sense of intelligence or acumen is not transferable, being either innate or acquired through individual effort. Authority in the sense of keenness of judgement, penetrating perception, perspicacity, shrewdness, wisdom and wit may be encouraged and shared amongst individuals, but the tendency of power, on the other hand, is to hold onto things and impose itself on others. In the interests of equity and humanity, therefore, power must be delegated.
Authority, Gratitude, Facts & Value-judgements
Authority in DLM's sense can be altruistic, but power is self-regarding. Authority, he says, is nobler than power. He then makes a very important observation: 'To know means, to a large extent, to act on faith in the contributions of others, and to accept their authority.' To know for the Buddhist, one might add, is to know 'what has been done to (or for) one'; to know is to feel gratitude. So much - practically all - of what we have and what we think comes from others. Authority in DLM's sense is something possessed by what Buddhists would call a True Individual (as contrasted with a merely statistical one). It gives birth, amongst other things, to an ability to distinguish facts from value-judgements. Such authority serves firstly to define and only secondarily to judge. But so vast are the fields of possible knowledge that no one human mind can have access to them all simultaneously. Moreover, inequalities develop in proportion to the speed and accuracy with which individuals assimilate knowledge. Where two individuals gather, one will be cognitively superior to the other in some respect, he says. There will also be spiritual differences, we might add.
Power an imposition of the Will
Power, the third great social inequality after authority in the sense of knowledge, and after what DLM calls 'prestige', is defined by him as the ability to impose one's will on others. Today, social power is shared democratically and 'ordered' by the Law, which is itself inseparable from coercion and power. The Law distinguishes crimes and exacts punishments, and this entails inequality. Positively, the Law also rewards heroism with honours. The specialization of functions and variation in skills in society are inseparable from inequality. The differences inherent in human beings translate, in society, into inequality of power. Rousseauism in the sense of equalization of power, prestige and authority, DLM points out, could come about only in a limiting utopia, in a state consisting of only one citizen.
Section 16 : Rousseau and Marx
Rousseau and Marx
Rousseau saw in inequality a political issue, and plagiarising Locke, wanted to re-establish, as he supposed, a paradise of equality in which no man had even natural authority over another. All decisions that affected society would be placed in the hands of majority vote. Thus, men were to live in a society in which power was evenly and permanently distributed amongst every citizen. Marx rejected this kind of egalitarianism, but, says DLM, deep down he was even more radical than those of the Directory of the French Revolution. His egalitarianism, claims DLM, was not only political but also 'anthropological' - that is to say, was concerned with man as species, with statistical man, not with man as true individual, potential or real, and cites the following quotation:
When the real, individual man will retake possession of the abstract citizen, when in his empirical life, in his individual work, and in his individual relations he becomes transformed into generic being; when man recognizes his own strength as the strength of society.... only then will he attain human emancipation.
Marx's vision of the individual which is implicit here is not transparently clear, and is not subjected by DLM to a very convincing critique, though he is critical of it to some extent.
A Buddhist view of Individuality
Buddhism would not regard man, ordinary man, as experiencing himself simply or even primarily as a 'generic' being. On the contrary, we all know how puzzled and even distressed we can feel just because we do not apparently share the same consciousness as all other men and all other women. What in fact happens, as the child with his indeterminate psychic boundaries matures, is that he experiences himself more and more as an isolated individual. He becomes a being with his own quite definitely perceived boundaries, his own empirical selfhood, his own unique, individual experience. He might indeed attain spiritual emancipation and realize transcendence, but only by learning, on the firm basis of his own happy, healthy experience of human selfhood, to empathize with all other human beings. With the maturing of this capacity to empathize comes the ability to transcend those positively necessary boundaries of individuality.
The Average man versus the True Individual
Whether Marx shared this vision of the maturing of the process of Individuation is by no means clear from the passage quoted above. He appears to think of work - work being one of the most important contexts for man's experience of himself both as an individual and in relation to others - as an experience of 'generic being' - again an abstraction. Whatever the work, Marx appears to think it best to regard it as something statistical and anonymous, its value to be counted the same whether it is ethical and ennobling or not. Here we see the apotheosis of statistical man, average man - the purely fictional man. As the vision, so the spiritual stature The young man or woman who solders silicon chips into a computer motherboard designed for use in an atomic missile, or the horny-handed men who spend much of their lives throwing rubbish bags into the refuse disposal van are to be regarded as 'equal' to the dedicated doctor or to the inspired musician, philosopher or poet. Of course, each of them is a human being, and therefore potentially unlimited in what they might become. Each is useful to society in various ways, and no doubt we are grateful for that. But each has chosen his or her particular course in life according to the narrowness, or to the breadth and depth of their vision. As the vision, so the spiritual stature. The great majority of men and women today are limited by the weakness and intermittent nature of their vision. They are the alienated products of contemporary civilization - members of industrialized society, the consumer society, the democratised, feminised and egalitarian society.
Section 17 : 'Vital' and 'Ultraterrestrial' Inequality
'Vital' Inequality and 'Ultraterrestrial' Inequality
DLM's notion of 'vital' inequality concerns the will. The will, he says, is the supreme differentiating power, the chief cause of the differences between individuals, as well as the key to non-coercive inequalities. The dynamic character of human life characterized as the will 'doubles' the genetic individuality, says DLM, a variability that is further enhanced by an infinite variety of freedoms and circumstances. 'Humans take it that living is being, and since they want to live, they make themselves unequal. To live is to be unequal.'
A traditional Christian view concerning human differences
The section on 'ultraterrestrial' inequality opens, predictably enough, with a bit of Christian dogma concerning the origin of human differences. St.Paul: 'There are many graces... that the Holy Spirit distributes to each one as He wishes.' And in Matthew 17, v.27 we hear that: 'The Son of Man will grant each according to their works.' Even orthodox Christianity, therefore, suggests DLM, declares itself on the side of an absolute inequality, since in the final analysis, 'some will be saved and others condemned, and there will be a hierarchical gradation in rewards and punishments.' No need for an omnipotent personal god Here the Buddhist can simply point to the natural outcome of willed actions. He has no need to invoke the idea of a personal or individual, all-powerful, all-seeing, judgemental God to account for 'rewards and punishments'. But DLM closes with a reflection: 'The possible inequality that would exist between the complete and permanent enjoyment of the absolute good and the total and unending suffering of evil is the maximal conception possible to humans primordially geared towards happiness. The inequalities of the world', he says, 'appear insignificant to the believer who accepts those eternal disparities as possible.'
Dogmatic Christianity
The thought that some 'believers' might indeed consider such a degree of inequality possible or desirable is horrifying, and is also a sobering reflection upon the resentment and vindictiveness that may lie buried in the human breast as a result of dogmatic Christianity. Buddhism, particularly in its Mahayana form, whilst rejoicing in human differences, sees the path to Enlightenment as in principle open to all, at all times, in all places, and all beings whatsoever as entering, in the course of time, the path to Enlightenment.
Section 18 : The Egalitarian Ideal
The Egalitarian Ideal
Near the end of the third Section of Egalitarian Envy, DLM examines the the Egalitarian Ideal, and he starts by considering the notion of Equality before the Law. Equality before the Law cannot be brought about by the Law itself, which fails to discriminate between persons, he points out. It is the notion of equity that allows for the humane administration of relatively inflexible laws. Implicit in the notion of equity is the realization that no two human beings are alike. The idea of absolute equality is problematic and subjectivist, and far from being egalitarian, creates and perpetuates inequalities, says DLM.
Buddhist Loving-kindness - Metta - the answer to Power-mode
The Buddhist practice of metta (universal loving-kindness) and notions of duty, though not binding at law, are in practice more straightforward and effective than the legal 'solutions' to inequality. They obviate the supposed necessity of asserting the popular, modern and legalistic notion of 'rights', which, far from establishing harmony between men, smack of what is known as 'power mode'. Power mode is the use of power or the threat of power - legal, physical, emotional, rational - power of any kind whatsoever, to coerce others in order to achieve one's own merely selfish and subjective ends. In practice, the exercise of power mode further exacerbates disharmony and envy and produces in society a prevailing mood or even culture of protest.
The Will of the Majority Political Equality proposes 'One man, one vote', DLM points out. This is supposed to ensure that legislators and leaders will enact ordinances and administrative decisions that will tend to become a reflection of the will of the majority. The will of the majority, such thinking goes, will not be elitist and discriminatory, but popular and egalitarian. The 'equality of political rights' is thus the result and the guarantee of equality before the Law. It has therefore become the starting point and the goal of the liberal-democratic state, says DLM. He comments: 'Unfortunately, this... theoretical hypothesis... is more of an illusion than a reality.' By way of illustration, he points out the fact that world states being many and unequal means that one man's vote does not have the same value throughout the world as another's. It is not the same thing to be able to elect the President of the United States as it is to be able to elect the First Minister of Liechtenstein.
Thus, says DLM, political equality might be attainable only if there was one single world State. Rights of Individuals and Rights of the State may be in conflict The citizens of a State have the supposed right of self-determination 'against' the interests of the international community, but this 'right' may be denied the same individual citizens vis-à-vis their own State. This is because, DLM says, the democratic concept 'the people' is extraordinarily confused. There is further confusion, DLM points out, because of the existence of Nations. Some Nations include a plurality of States, some States include a plurality of Nations.
The Individual versus the Group
One cannot help wondering whether, if DLM had taken his thinking a little further, the fundamental dichotomy between the values and ideals of any individual as an individual and those of the values of the ethnic or social group from which the individual stands out would have become apparent. However, DLM simply concludes that the greater the number of groups, the greater the conflicting interests. The moral would seem to be to reduce the number of groups with which human beings identify themselves. This is not an attractive, or even, perhaps, a possible proposition. The alternative is tantamount to accepting that in the course of time, every human being will become more and more radically at odds with every other human being. Such a conclusion is profoundly pessimistic and incongruent both with experience of ordinary humanity and with the actuality of the Buddhist Sangha refuge - the existence of a free and happy association of autonomous individuals with real spirituality - a unity in diversity. The increasing tension between groups with apparently conflicting interests is in practice resolved by more and more responsible individuals ceasing to identify exclusively with any group whatsoever and voluntarily espousing a common sense of universal human values.
Section 19 : Political Rights and Hierarchy
Political Rights
Even the pragmatism of effectively democratic groups is riddled, DLM says, with problems: one hears people speak of 'political rights' – presumably established democratically - but what about limitations of age? The Buddhist would point out that prolonged and unthinking use of the idea of 'rights' has made the notion appear a moral imperative. But, the Buddhist would say, the whole language of 'rights' is in fact vitiated from the start, and is not only a mere abstract proposition but also a positively misleading one. What 'right' do I have to anything? Existing, I have duties. To the extent that I perform those duties towards other human beings who exist, particularly the duties of human solidarity, brotherhood and friendship, to that extent good and happiness may come to me and to them.
Society is Intrinsically Hierarchical
In the latter half of this section, the ideas of the 'archetype', the 'political deputy' and the 'superior man' make their appearance, and DLM's argument becomes spiritually incisive. When one leaves aside political code languages and all talk of 'rights', he says, the false notion of equality disappears. Society, being inevitably and by definition a structure with a vertical dimension, is hierarchical. Equality of power, if such an unreal thing were to be established, would mean that decisions that affected the community would be initiated not by a properly-qualified superior or excellent man or woman but by the collectivity. DLM does not mention the Internet. This system of 'communication' (which can also promote mis-communication) is making possible more and more extensive reference to the majority in more and more areas of decision-making, but will not necessarily provide a solution to the basic problem. Supposing, DLM suggests, that by some extraordinary mental gymnastic the vision of a wise man was declared to be of equal value to the opinion of an ignorant and stupid person. Even then, their two votes on a matter of common concern, taken together, would not be better than the 'vote' of the wise man.
The Majority and the Individual
DLM views the interest in consensus rather than a simplistic majority vote as 'a tacit acceptance that majorities are not sufficient,' and here we begin to touch on one highly significant point of difference between democratic councils and a Buddhist sangha or Spiritual Community. 'The majority principle' DLM says, 'is very far from being self-evident.' 'Siding at times with minorities is also an admission that numbers do not express truth or goodness.' The majoritarian principle is not, he argues, a means of excluding all tyrannies. The majority may itself be a tyranny. Here it is worth reminding ourselves of a short series of aphorisms of Sangharakshita's:
"One can legislate for the group, but not for the individual". "One can generalize about people only to the extent that they are not individuals." "Truth is more likely to be with the individual than with the group". "The group is always wrong"
By 'individual' here, Sangharakshita means the true individual, the spiritually developed individual, not the 'statistical' individual. Political equality, DLM concludes, is not compatible with any hierarchy, for it requires an [impractical, purely theoretical] social relationship.
"Social equalities can be brought about only by a power that becomes as absolute as the absolute egalitarianism to which it aspires."
Section 20 : Equality of Opportunity
Equality of Opportunity
Irrefutable evidence of inequality leads to the apparently more moderate claim for 'equality of opportunity,' says DLM. But differences in genetic heritage, variations in the will to apply oneself to difficult tasks; patrimony and geographic, historical and cultural conditions frustrate this claim. DLM might well also have mentioned differences in spiritual aptitude – differences in the willingness to commit oneself intially to life-long spiritual discipline leading to self-development – a fact which gives the lie to egalitarianism.
There remains the notion of equality in the field of education. Education falls into three main categories, says DLM - the familial, the social and the scholarly. How in any sense can equality be established, when inherent inequalities in intelligence have already been pointed out? DLM then proceeds to examine a eugenic of intelligence, an area of practical interest and broad ethical implications as mankind's ability to manipulate chromosomes develops. Meritocracy In a meritocratic society, DLM says, social position would be linked to a personal value that would be 'objective, productive, and publicly recognized'. This resonates to some extent with the Buddha's famous dictum: 'A man's position in society should accord with his worth, not with his birth.' DLM however sees dangers in a meritocratic society, in that it might well lead to a stratification more rigid than that produced by a society organised principally along the lines of name and patrimony. 'Which then would be best', he asks, 'a familial (presumably nepotistic) society or a meritocratic one?' He comes down, despite his reservations, on the side of the latter, which though tending to produce greater inequality, allows for the optimum utilization of 'intellectual resources' and is more creative.
All this, of course, begs the question of intelligence - what it is, how it is to be measured, and how employed. Nor is the question of the connection, if any, between intelligence and morality addressed. DLM is apparently satisfied with the notion of greater intelligence leading to greater diversity and, he thinks, to greater creativity. Economic Equality Economic Equality is the last topic to be tackled in this penultimate chapter of the last of DLM's three great sections. Economic equality, like all the equalities, proves in DLM's eyes to be a chimera. Rising to a crescendo of indictment, DLM declares that economic equality proves always to be 'surgical' - it confiscates, standardizes, rations, levels salaries, forces production, establishes human uniformity.... It discourages self-improvement and productivity, destroys personality, substitutes arithmetic for justice, mutilates liberty, reduces creativity, alienates morality and decapitates the formation of the best. In any case, economic equality is only possible to a relative degree, and thus the motives for envy and resentment are not sufficiently removed. All this, says DLM, is a very high social price to pay for such a mediocre outcome, and it would be invidious to disagree with him.
The Reptilian Greed of Consumerism
The Buddhist of course regards the whole context and ethos of the consumer society within which movement towards economic equality is supposedly in process of realisation as inherently flawed. To encourage the consumption of more rather than less can never conduce towards contentment and the surmounting of envy, whether the prevailing economic differentials are large or small. The members of a truly spiritual community would be encouraged to withdraw resolutely from all manifestations of consumerism, to live a life of sharing and generosity, to subsist on the minimum possible for individual well-being and to donate their surplus to whatever good causes seemed to them worthy of economic support. Thus the good would be encouraged and reptilian greed eschewed.
Section 21 : De la Mora's Conclusions about Envy
De la Mora's Conclusions
The last Chapter of the third of de la Mora's major sections is entitled, appropriately enough, 'Conclusions'. He examines relatively briefly various kinds of equality. Group mentalities, becoming in the course of the last few centuries more and more egalitarian in outlook, produce sophistic ideologies, and this is the first consideration to fall on our Spanish author's anvil. Rousseau the sophist and cynic Seizing upon Rousseau as the archetype of modern sophistry, DLM characterizes him as one of the most genuine exponents of universal cynicism. 'Nature has established equality among men, and they have established inequality' says Rousseau. 'He writes mostly fiction', says DLM, 'but the most fictive, perhaps, of all his preachings, is egalitarianism.' The truth [concerning mankind], says DLM, is exactly the opposite: 'Nature, which is hierarchical, creates all men unequal, and society, which homogenizes, tries to make all men similar and strives to eradicate their individual peculiarities.'
The hypothetical homogeneity proclaimed by Rousseau, says DLM, 'is contradicted by the facts uncovered by genetics, psychology and physiology. It is a fiction of demagogues and frustrated people.' Conditioned from the cradle The homogenizing process decreed by society begins in the cradle with the imprinting of a specific language, and that language tacitly and implicitly prescribes a certain set of rules for thinking. Rules of behaviour, diet, health, dress, worship and so on are impressed in rapid succession.
'Whoever deviates', says DLM, 'becomes an eccentric, a rebel.' He believes - contrary to the preaching of Rousseau which his disciples, in particular the socialists, have followed - that the present social task is not so much to increase the egalitarian capacities of society and of the State, but to further develop the individual. This idea, of course, goes against the whole trend of 'positive discrimination' that has been widely practised in the USA in recent years.
To each their proper place
Buddhism, dispensing with all unnecessary ideology and theory, encourages everyone to undertake the path of individual spiritual development and to take his or her natural place in relation to others and to the world. The ideal society for the Buddhist is one that supports the development of true individuality amongst men and women. It is a 'society' - better, a Sangha or spiritual community - which encourages excellence and affords opportunities for those with ability to take the lead. It helps everyone find his or her proper place in the hierarchy of being, whether it is at work or at worship, at the market place, in the workshop or in the temple.
Neither Eugenics nor Meritocracy will do Egalitarian ideologies, says DLM, have failed to provide a systematic and reasoned analysis of what it is possible and what it is desirable to equalize in human beings. Identity between any two human beings is impossible, because every actual human being is individual and irreproducible, he says. Meritocratic education and eugenics might appear to offer solutions, but both 'solutions' would in practice fail to meet the test of egalitarianism; they would be inherently selective and unegalitarian, besides courting violation of ethical principles. The governed not equal to the governors Societies, which are inherently hierarchical, involve the sharing in different measure of political power.
Even a well-administered participatory democracy would not produce equality of political power, only equality of so-called 'political rights'. The governed are not 'equal' to those who govern; they cannot revoke their vote at a moment's notice, and in the interval between elections, the representatives can enact legislation that is not the 'will of the people'.
Even in the professions, for instance, which demand a high degree of levelling within their ranks, differences in levels of performance cannot be prevented. Could coercion produce the desired result? The more egalitarian the will of society, the higher degree of coercion that is required to maintain it. We cannot imagine a society from which all rewards and punishments for difference were removed. Even equality of opportunity is impossible in practice.
Unequal opportunity better than Meritocracy
DLM considers it likely that the establishment of a strict meritocracy would in time produce a clearer and more intractable social stratification than that which we find in other types of society. On the other hand, unequal opportunity, which has operated for millennia, has already provided the basis for the upward mobility of the individual poorly endowed by patrimony but intellectually gifted, and the downward mobility of the rich man who is incompetent. Meritocracy and Natural Selection However, says DLM, meritocracy (presumably he means to say 'in some measure') is biologically essential, '.... for it promotes the best and cleanses them genetically, [though it has to be said that this phraseology has a sinister ring nowadays] increasing their perfective evolution and their distance from the inferior. It is, therefore, the social technique that is the most progressive and the most un-egalitarian.' DLM seems here to be equating the meritocracy practised by human societies with Darwinian 'natural selection'. Whilst there are no doubt parallelisms between the two processes, they are by no means identical in their functioning or their results.
Section 22 : Is Economic Egalitarianism Possible?
Is economic egalitarianism possible?
The last shibboleth to be toppled by DLM is that of economic egalitarianism. He asks: Is economic egalitarianism possible? Nationalization of the means of production, abolition of inheritance, the removal of interest on capital and the levelling of all salaries would go some way towards this, but, he points out, it does not take into account the varying degrees of efficiency with which individuals utilise money. Nor does it take into account the 'perks' that go with positions of authority. An Indian sceptic once remarked that it required £2,000 a day (or some such sum) to keep Mahatma Gandhi poor. 'To impose economic egalitarianism', says DLM, 'would require the suppression of political power.' Coming now near to a close, DLM examines the 'individual instinct'. He begins this section with a magnificent paragraph that is worth quoting in full:
"The primary instinct of man is not conservation, but self-realization. Man has nothing that remains fixed, though some of his structures, like his bones, are less modifiable than others. For this reason, to live does not mean to preserve, but rather to renew everything. Man is not stimulated by the desire to remain static, but rather by the unfolding of his capacities and the realization of his projects. Man is not a monolith nailed down in nature; he is a torrent. To stop the flow would end his life. Whatever is real becomes; and human existence is the sharpest manifestation of such becoming, for man is not already made, but makes himself and cannot stop his self-creation for one single minute."
The remainder of this brief but eloquent section is vehement: '...we [the human species] are radically un-egalitarian. ....any external pressure towards egalitarianism, either through ideology, fashion, or position, alienates us from ourselves, for it is an attempt at altering that which is most intimate in us - our authentic self-realization - and not the mechanical shaping of us by the environment.'
It is hardly possible to summarize DLM's words at this point without falsifying them or reducing their impact, but once again he champions the individual striving to become more himself against the reductionism of social pressure. 'Inequality', he says, 'is the product of the most radical and the most noble instincts in man: to be able to realize one's own identity in the best possible way.' Metaphysical equality With one more sub-sub-section to go, DLM examines 'metaphysical' equality, and affirms that actual equality of human beings is a metaphysical impossibility. Each individual is genetically different - with the rare exception of monozygotic twins, who in any case differ in other respects. So all members of the human species are morally, physically and intellectually unequal. The only (relatively) realizable equality, he says, is equality before the Law.
Genetic equality, besides being morally questionable, could only be brought about by despotic means, depriving mothers and fathers of their own children. This observation of DLM's raises the interesting moral question of what sort of people and under what sort of circumstances, should become parents? What, ideally, is the relationship of all parents to society? In what sense and to what extent do parents 'own' their children? Then again, equality of authority, rewards, and economic levels would unhinge the social structure. The maxim 'Give to each his own' would have to be replaced by 'Give to each a proportionate part of the collective income, independent of individual behaviour and worth.' In any case, the determination and allocation of a proportional share to individuals of the universal income of all the nations is today a total chimera, says DLM.
Equality in Buddhism
There is a sense in which equality is affirmed in Buddhism - but this is at an altogether more subtle 'metaphysical' level. Buddhism affirms - in accordance with the words of the human historical Buddha - that all phenomena - the whole of human experience - is mind-made, preceded by mind, made up of mind. It is in this sense and this sense only that human beings may be said to be 'equal'.
Section 23 : The Just Margins of Inequality
The just margins of inequality
One big question remaining is also a moral one: given the impossibility of imposing actual equality, what are the just margins of inequality? De la Mora has some interesting and thought-provoking answers. The minimum moral power for all men, he says, is that of 'the moral dignity of the person.' Exactly what he means is not immediately clear, and is no doubt worth careful consideration. The minimum political power, he says, is 'fundamental rights' (whatever these are; Buddhists would say that the concept of 'duty' takes precedence over 'right'). The minimum economic power he sees as a family's salary 'at the level of social development' (whatever this might mean). These non-egalitarian 'ideals', though pertaining more to the level of society and the group rather than to the development of the individual, are disappointingly vague after egalitarianism has received such a thorough trouncing. However, perhaps this is necessarily the case, for we are here, DLM admits, 'in an area of prudence and relativity'.
In one last broadside, he says: 'Absolute egalitarianism is not a science, it is a spell. Equality does not exist and the political problem that this creates is [to be] solved by regulating inequalities without stopping the impulse to self-realization; this is the most noble in man and the most powerful incentive of history.' The Motive for Economic Levelling
The book ends on what is, for the spiritual aspirant, a disappointing note. It ends with the question of the motive for economic levelling. DLM begins his short, last section which gives the book its title: Egalitarian Envy, by lauding imitation in the infant: 'Thanks to this strong plagiaristic mechanism, the infant assimilates tradition and stands with little effort at the height of the times in order to continue the ascending march of the species.' De la Mora goes on to say, quite rightly, however, that 'The discovery of purely imitative intentions in the adult is a sign of infantilism... If the adult were to remain strictly imitative... each generation would repeat the previous one.' This phenomenon (to do and to be the same as the other) finds perfect articulation, he says, through natural evolution, but in man it can become pathological. It can degenerate into the will to expropriate, or rob, or the desire to destroy so that the other does not become more, does not accomplish more and does not have more.
In this last case, the goal is not [even] to become equal through imitation, but to lower the other. Such egalitarianism, the typical product of envy, has produced, he says, a social current that has continued to grow since the apparition of Marxism and whose true features cannot be seen unless unmasked, 'for envy is surreptitious, hypocritical and simulating.' To level or not to level? Experience shows repeatedly that private enterprise is more efficient than State enterprise. Moreover, it creates more jobs than public investments, DLM says. Why then, he asks, is there the urge to nationalize? Why is taxation not fixed at a proportion of one's income? The answer comes easily, perhaps too easily: egalitarian envy. Not that DLM's conclusions are necessarily wrong, but that after so much in the book that is of profound philosophical and spiritual interest, his concluding remarks might be seen as supporting a disappointingly narrow and even selfish motive. The vital issue to which DLM's mostly excellent book really draws attention is not really 'socialism versus capitalism' but whether deliberate attempts to 'level' people is possible and practicable, good and wise, or whether attempts to do so are misguided because they are spiritually and morally stultifying as well as ultimately impossible of practical realisation.
Section 24 : Concluding Remarks
Concluding remarks
This is a book that is likely to arouses strong feelings in the reader - feelings of revulsion, feelings both of appreciation and of disapprobation. Much of what DLM says makes excellent sense and is in line with our understanding of Buddhist principles. However, good though he is in identifying the roots of envy, are we convinced that he has shown decisively the link with egalitarianism? This is perhaps ultimately unprovable, and whether or not one regards his thesis as true will depend upon a purely spiritual perception. What we can say however is that nothing DLM says departs from conclusions which common sense might draw given a certain amount of life-experience, some familiarity with literary tradition, and powers of clear reasoning.
The most unsatisfactory part of the book from the Buddhist perspective is that DLM does not go far enough in identifying the counter-measures to envy. Intellectual seeding necessary but not sufficient. The 'intellectual seeding' which DLM speaks of early in the book is vitally necessary but still not sufficient. The Dharma in the sense of the Path to Human Enlightenment, the Higher Evolution of Man, may also be considered a sort of 'intellectual seeding', but it is much more than that. The 'seeding' may be said to be our initial contact with the Teaching of the Buddha, in the course of which we acquire - and put to the test - certain ideas and attitudes.
We are told - and may simply believe, simply respond with faith at first - to the idea that there is a human or higher human attainment called Enlightenment. But sooner or later we come to know as a matter of personal experience that there is a definite path or way to that attainment which, in principle, anyone whatsoever can follow. Enlightenment free of negative mental states, free of Idols The 'seeding' continues: we may respond with faith to the idea that an Enlightened man or woman sees reality face-to-face, entirely free of preconceptions, how much less misconceptions about it. Furthermore, we may realise intuitively that the Enlightened individual is entirely free of what are called unskilful - i.e. morally blameworthy - mental states, free of idols. A morally blameworthy mental state is one which would form the basis of a false view concerning reality. Such a view would sooner or later cause harm, cause pain either to the person entertaining that view, or to someone else.
It is not easy to realise that in a sense we are always 'driving a car' - directing our minds more or less skilfully - in some direction or other. Human beings are led, steered, directed by habit-patterns, by patterns of behaviour which are all too often the manifestation of confused thinking. Such behaviour subsequently reinforces the thoughts and attitudes and mis-directedness which originally gave rise to them. The Path to Enlightenment - Meditation and the 'Superconscious' Discovering the need to develop skilful mental states and learning to actually do so by means of meditation, the psychologically healthy human being purifies himself of envy and begins to aspire to Enlightenment. This is likely to happen all the more readily if there is a good exemplar of the Buddhist path available to inspire and to provide a basis for emulation. One way or another, we discover that the way out of our confused and undirected, habitual and essentially neurotic thought-patterning is the practise of meditation, which gives us at least a foretaste of mental-cum-emotional states which are 'superconscious' - which are unmixed with anything negative or reactive like envy, which are of great moral purity, entirely creative, imbued with energy and so to speak open-ended - leading onward and upward to higher and ever higher states of consciousness and being.
Section 25 : The Spiritual Solution
The spiritual solution
Rather than looking for psychological origins to envy and hence for psychological solutions, the Buddha's method is to train oneself to look directly and deeply into one's own heart and mind and step by step to transform and transmute what one finds. Thus we test and discover in the fires of our own experience the truth that the 'world' we inhabit is made up of and directed by our own mental states, states for which we can become responsible and which we can transform. If we practice meditation effectively we see directly that in the absence of positive mental states our minds tend to be machine-like and reactive. Nothing good, nothing creative arises out of them. If on the other hand through mental discipline we cultivate and sustain positive, creative mental states such as mindfulness and self-awareness, friendliness and insightful reflection leading to positive, creative action, the negative, reactive states fall away and we begin to experience more and more frequently what are called the 'superconscious' mental states.
Buddhism sees that envy, an essentially negative and reactive mental state or series of states, can arise and flourish only in the absence of positive and creative mental states. Envy grows like a weed only where there is no sense of gratitude, no sense of empathy, no rejoicing in the good deeds of others, no extending of the hand of fellowship to others. A vision of the non-dual, mutually-conditioned nature of self and other Looking more deeply, where the mutual conditioning of subject and object, self and others, self and things, self and world, is seen clearly, there can be no question of envy arising. The tinted glasses of one's own one-sidedly subjective viewpoint have simply been removed.
Looking more deeply still, or rather, seeing from a level of consciousness which realises that there is, ultimately, no absolute subject and no absolute object, there is no theoretical or practical, psychological or spiritual support whatsoever for the arising of envy. Envy of the spiritually developed is self-limiting In the absence of Enlightenment, however, envy may arise not only in respect of those who are superior in intellectual endowment, wealth or prestige; it may also arise in respect of individuals who are more spiritually developed than oneself. But so long as one envies men or women of spiritual attainment there can be no higher human development, because instead of the healthy wish to learn from, to emulate and to assist in the work of one's more spiritually developed friends, there will be the aim to belittle.
The insistence that all men and all women are equal flies in the face of the vision, the experience and the reality of a spiritual hierarchy of human beings, and is completely incompatible with the vision of the true state of affairs attested to by the wise. The roots of egalitarianism exposed Inasmuch as it gives the lie to egalitarianism and exposes its roots, the basic message of DLM's Egalitarian Envy is eminently worth noting by all those who want to develop spiritually, as well as by those who have begun to suspect that egalitarianism may not be the answer to the further progress of society. It is also worth studying and reflecting on by everyone who recognizes that culture and civilization and possibly the very future of the human race stand on the shoulders of innumerable men and women of outstanding character who were geniuses, true individuals, wise men and wise women who have striven and continue to strive for excellence, for self-mastery, and for the happiness and welfare of mankind. If the direction of world affairs is allowed to fall more and more often into the hands of the mediocre, mankind will simply perish. We have a simple choice before us: recognise that there is a hierarchy of being and evolve in the direction of true individuality by taking our lead from superior individuals (but not of course without serious and timely reflection); or perish as a non-viable species.