“Civilization is Material, and Culture is Spiritual”

 “Civilization is Material, and Culture is Spiritual”

✍️ Prof. Satyavrat Siddhāntālaṅkār

There is a fundamental difference between civilization (sabhyatā) and culture (saṁskṛti). Civilization is the body; culture is the soul. Civilization concerns the external, while culture pertains to the inner being. Civilization refers to material development, whereas culture refers to spiritual development. Railways, telegraphs, computers, automobiles, airplanes, and similar inventions are indicators of the progress of civilization. Truth and falsehood, honesty and dishonesty, contentment and discontent, self-control and indulgence — these are indicators of the rise or fall of culture.

It is not necessary that cultural development always leads to the realization that one must live truthfully, not deceitfully; honestly, not dishonestly; with contentment, not greed; with restraint, not excess. It is possible that a society or nation may adopt a form of culture where falsehood, dishonesty, greed, and unrestrained indulgence are taken as its foundational elements — but such a culture cannot be called su-saṁskṛta (refined or noble culture).

In the realm of culture, those who base their lives on the principles of ahiṁsā (non-violence), satya (truth), asteya (non-stealing), brahmacarya (chastity), and aparigraha (non-possessiveness) will give rise to one kind of culture; while those who base their lives on hiṁsā (violence), asatya (falsehood), parigraha (greed), asteya (theft), and abrahmacarya (unchastity) will produce another kind of culture. Both are forms of culture — one high (divine), the other low (demonic) — but neither can be called civilization.

Civilization has no direct relation to ahiṁsā-hiṁsā (non-violence or violence), satya-asatya (truth or falsehood), asteya-steya (non-stealing or stealing), brahmacarya-abrahmacarya (continence or indulgence), or aparigraha-parigraha (non-possessiveness or greed). A person may be wealthy, possess large buildings, have cars, servants, and all material comforts — yet be a liar, dishonest, immoral, and addicted to vice. Such a person may be civilized in the worldly sense, but not cultured in the higher sense. If he possesses any culture, it is not a divine (daivī) culture but a demonic (āsurī) one. A degraded, demonic culture — founded on falsehood, dishonesty, jealousy, hatred, and greed — cannot truly be called culture at all. Hence, for such a way of life, we will not even use the term saṁskṛti.

From this perspective, a person may be “civilized” yet “uncultured,” and another may be “cultured” yet appear “uncivilized.” This is because civilization is material and external, while culture — whether noble or base — is spiritual and internal.

Civilization and culture may coexist, but they can also exist independently. It is possible for a society or nation to be highly advanced materially and also to hold spiritual values as the guiding principles of life. This is the highest and ideal state. It is also possible for a nation to be materially advanced but spiritually degraded — such a nation would possess high civilization but low culture. Conversely, a society may be materially backward yet spiritually elevated. Such a society, though considered uncivilized by material standards, must be revered for its superior culture.

From this analysis, it becomes evident that between civilization and culture, culture occupies the higher place — particularly the kind founded upon truth, honesty, contentment, self-restraint, and love. The world does not need material progress as urgently as it needs truth, integrity, restraint, and universal love.

Having both civilization and culture is best; but if one must choose, culture is superior to civilization. Civilization may be sacrificed to preserve culture — but culture must never be sacrificed for civilization. Just as the body may be abandoned for the sake of the soul, but never the soul for the sake of the body.

Source: “Vedic Culture ke Mool Tatva” (The Fundamental Principles of Vedic Culture)
Author: Dr. Satyavrat Siddhāntālaṅkār
Former Member of Parliament and Vice-Chancellor, Gurukul Kangri University