THE CRISIS OF INTELLECT - Part 5 of 5

The crisis of intellect – Part 5 of 5

Two thousand and odd years ago, Jesus called upon man to undergo a second birth and allow the current of universal love to flow through him. But at no time has the need to heed this call been more urgent than today, when we have the power to destroy not only ourselves but everything which sustains us – to achieve the greatest feat of adharma. Dharma is that which sustains us and when we knock the earth from under our feet, when we blow it up, adharma could go no further.

The ancient Hindu scriptures have always talked of the earth as a tiny island in an immense universe of life. Today we can see that tiny island from a distance and feel the vastness that surrounds us. We must feel close to each other when we know we are very near to destruction. We cannot any longer afford to persist in the folly of misunderstanding religions other than our own. It has probably been rightly estimated that believers in God have killed more people in the name of religion than all the tyrants and invaders the world has ever seen. Half the troubles among religions are due to the rigid misconceptions concerning God.

Cooperation is one of the most fundamental lessons that religious persons have to learn from the practitioners of modern science. Our task should be to search diligently and patiently for the best principles of all the religions of humanity and, with the help of science, spread them throughout the world emphasizing their unifying and humanizing aspects, and thus make amends for the failure of science to promote these values.  If irrational dogmas which are contrary to facts are eliminated and if the enabling and unifying principles of religion are highlighted, religion will be rid of its deadweight and become an elevating force in the lives of people all over.

Our time being finite we don’t have to apologize for spending it on the best. In our study and practice of religions let us emphasize only the good things. In this matter therefore let us be more interested in values, not history. Take note of the currents of thought and aspirations of humanity as a whole. Let us not discard the canons of social justice. Let us not overlook the fact that God finds something of Himself in each religion and probably not fully in any one of them. Let us accept, as Hinduism has been maintaining, that all religions and sub-sects of religions are only several images on the different faces of a kaleidoscope, of the One Truth that is God Absolute and that is Love. Let us be iconoclasts therefore, not by decrying or breaking the idols and icons of other religions, but by ending the subtle form of idolatry in the shape of fanaticism that refuses to see any virtue in any form of worship other than one’s own.

None of the spiritual acquisitions of humanity can be set aside. Just as we appeal to those who think that science is the be-all and end-all of human endeavour and tell them they have another side to see, so also we must appeal to ourselves as followers of different religions or schools of religious philosophy that we should not waste our energies in discussing at an intellectual level as to who is right and who is wrong. It is only a misguided intellect that will discover a difference between one name of God and another. True religious life must express itself in love and respect  for all humanity and aim at the unity of mankind. A Sanskrit verse whose source is unknown says: Neither bead necklaces, nor the holding of Tulasi leaves, nor wearing the three-line mark, nor ashes, nor pilgrimage, nor holy bathing, nor ritual sacrifice, nor meditation, nor visiting temples nor having beatific visions of the divine – none of these can purify man ultimately.  What purifies him is his love of humanity and his pleasure in doing good to other humans and non-humans. Here is the solution for the crisis of intellect within each religion.

Every religion is a blend of macro-principles and micro-setting.  The macro principles speak to man as man. They are usually understood and appreciated though not easily followed. But the micro-setting in which each religion flourishes is a rich compound of mythology and ritual and it can never make its way into the emotional milieu of an outsider.  But to say that only the macro-principles are important is not right.  The tree is not more important than the sun and soil from which it draws its sustenance. Here is the crisis of intellect among the religions.  Each religion has therefore to be understood with reference to the soil in which it has been nurtured without any attempt at invidious comparisons.  However this emphasis on the micro-setting should not lead one to develop an aggressive pride in one’s culture and nationality. Certainly, pride in one’s culture and nationality is legitimate. But this pride, to quote the words of Huston Smith from ‘Religions of Man’, ‘should be an affirmative pride born of a gratitude for the values he has gained and not a defensive pride whose only device for achieving the sense of superiority it pathetically needs is by grinding down others through invidious comparison. His roots in his family, his community, his civilisation will be deep, but in that very depth he will strike the water table of man’s common humanity and thus nourished will reach out in more active curiosity, more open vision, to discover and understand what others have seen.’ 

THE CRISIS OF INTELLECT: Part 4 of 5

The crisis of intellect – Part 4 of 5

We have been referring to the crisis of intellect within Hinduism, or to put it abstractly, within one religion. The larger crisis of intellect finds expression in wanting to adjudicate among the great religions of the world. What is important today is to come together and rediscover that this larger crisis of intellect can be resolved only by going back to the very ancient thoughts that have remained with us for more than twenty centuries now. The period of the first millennium B.C is the most important period of history in this context. That was the time when the axis of the world’s thoughts shifted from a study of nature to the study of man’s life and his inner aspirations. Then in India we had the Upanishadic seers, Mahavira the Jina and Gautama the Buddha; in China we had Lao Tse and Confucius, in Iran there was Zoroaster, in Israel there were the great prophets and in Greece, Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato. That surge of activity and investigation and the profundity of thought of that period have never since been matched. Yes, modern Science has made phenomenal, even miraculous advances. But what should amaze us is that the ancients achieved so much with so little help from outside. The gadgetry which one can command today is certainly unequalled in its sweep and power. But note that the philosophers of the first millennium B.C achieved what they did by sheer rational thinking coupled with a certain intuition of their own. The test of significance of what they left for posterity is in the fact that they have survived twenty centuries of war and peace, strife and hatred, and all the ups and downs of great empires and civilizations. It is really questionable whether anything of what we call 20^th-21^st century science and technology today will survive as valid knowledge twenty centuries hence!

Let me not be mistaken as decrying intellect. The heights to which reason can rise today, the accuracy with which we can make our observations even at the frontiers of the galaxy, the comfort with which we can handle nature’s forces to suit ourselves are all forward leaps of the highest order in human evolution. No doubt about it. But Science is only one kind of response of the finite to the infinite. There is another kind of response which is mystical. Mystical experimentation through meditation can never be verified by methods of science. That these experiments have to be considered valid in the total scheme of things is the lesson that we should learn from modern physics and its philosophical consequences. This is not to dethrone science from its high pedestal. But the limitations of science as a means of knowledge in revealing the universe have however to be accepted. By its only instrument of knowledge, namely sense-perception, supported of course by various gadgetry, and the inferences made from this ‘direct’ perception, it can reveal only the non-infinite side of the universe. The infinite side of the universe, has to be a fullness (pUrNaM in Sanskrit) that by its very definition and nature has to be revealed, if at all, only by scriptural authority (called shabda pramANa in Hindu philosophy) and intuition. Scriptural revelation is the instrument of knowledge for spirituality.  Can the ear corroborate or contradict the colour seen by the eye? Can the eye corroborate or contradict the decibel value of the noise heard by the ear? So also Science has no way of corroborating or contradicting the spiritual truths revealed by scriptural authority and intuition. However, let not the mystic and the religious immediately condemn science for its emphasis on intellect rather than tradition and faith. But just as the benefits that mankind derived through blind faith in the past were washed away by the primitive and superstitious jungle to which man mistakenly confined himself and thus blocked the progress of civilisation, so also, in modern times the emphasis on the intellect has done more harm than good.  The only way out of this situation is to readjust our attitudes in such a way as to restore balance between intellect and intuition.

Modern man needs a spiritual counterpart to the phenomenal external advance he has made.  All his scientific temper and technological output cannot hide the inner emptiness in his life. Our modern culture in general has gone overboard in testing how far we can go with sexuality, promiscuity, pornography, acquisitiveness, selfishness, aggression and violence. Many of us, though against all this,  do not have either the inclination or the stamina to react against these and this I would say is again a crisis of intellect, namely the crisis of isolation from what happens around. The need of the hour is to turn this culture spiritually inward and to make us look Godward, thereby getting the spiritual strength of a Vivekananda to fight and correct these ills of society, which do not have anything to do with religion. Scientific intellect has certainly made major contributions to man’s needs but they are not the major needs of man. They are only his minor needs, the needs of material happiness and physical survival.  But when this physical survival itself is threatened by the very inventiveness which humanity has displayed and sharpened through its collective intellect, the threat has to be faced by sustained and conscious efforts of man.  He has to resolve the greatest problem facing him – namely the conflict between the divine and the undivine in him. If today the terrorist elements of the world are indulging in untold massacres of innocent men, women and children and property, the only way by which we may hope to stop them is not just by more intellectual advances in science and their applications to technology but by complementing them with more and more of proper education soaked in human values.  It has been rightly said that humanity is a brainwashed species indoctrinated from childhood into the prejudices of nationality, race, colour, language and of narrow fundamentalist dogmatic religion.  True religion is far more than a system of beliefs and far more than a formalized effort to wheedle a little pity out of God by offering Him naïve self-condemning prayers and propitiatory rites.  Once we enter the area of spirituality we would discover that Truth is not unearthed by Science alone, but it has an even faster rate of unfolding via Spirituality.

(To be continued)

THE CRISIS OF INTELLECT : Part 3 of 5

The crisis of intellect – Part 3 of 5

The attitude that abrogates for itself the role of an upholder of Dharma very often slips into egoism. This is the second type of the crisis of intellect, as we have already seen. Dharma is so subtle a concept that only a godlike person like Krishna can declare that He is the One  who has come to establish Dharma and so he will not tolerate such and such an act of adharma. Even an avatara like Rama who had every right to flaunt the observance of dharma did not do so; he did not have the slightest egoistic pride  that could lead him to proclaim that he was making the greatest sacrifice for the sake of dharma. His humility even prevented him from going beyond the simple statement, even in intense debates about the dilemma of right and wrong that ‘Having been told by my mother and father to do what I am doing, how can I do otherwise?’ (mAtA pitRRibhyAM ukto.aham katham anyat samachare.  Valmiki Ramayana Southern Rescension: 2-104-22)

Take that colossus of humility, Jesus Christ. Never did so perfect a man walk on earth who gave love so naturally that no one could resist loving him intensely or feeling the force of his love. Never was there such a carpenter who carved the lives of millions of men for centuries after his day. And yet, never was there a person whose concern was not that people should know what he was but that people should know God and His love for His children. Never was there such a colossus  and yet the most humble of mankind!

It is humility and surrender to God’s Will that is most important and must be emphasized in the context of any crisis of intellect  which expresses itself as an emotional intoxication in the belief that one’s way of doing things is the right way.  Rama and Jesus knew what they were doing was the right thing but there was not an iota of arrogance in them. It is easy to say that everything happens according to God’s Will but extremely difficult to live by this belief. Surrender to God’s Will is not a pose but an attitude. When things happen which are not to one’s taste and wishes, in spite of all the best efforts one has put in and the precautions one has taken, the weak react by grumbling and apportioning blame, the strong by throwing their weight around, criticizing all and sundry and protesting noisily.  But the truly religious man will take it as God’s Will and submit to the flow of the current. While the self-conceited man will feel that his initiative has been lost the truly spiritual man will concede that the initiative had never been with him; it was always with Him alone.  It is not our will, our mind, or our intelligence that works out things for us. The agent provocateur is within us.  Every action is His.  (More technical explanation of this is in verses 13, 14, 15 of Ch.18 of the Bhagavadgita.) The only action that should be ours is to surrender our Will to Him. A nineteenth century Christian hymn says: ‘Oh Lord, take my Will and make it thine; it shall no longer be mine; take my heart, it is thine own; it shall be thy royal throne!’ In spite of any such prayer, this surrender of ours or God’s taking over our Will He never does for us according to Hindu Bhakti Yoga literature, because the wise say it has to come out of our free will.  He creates only the circumstances for us to surrender to Him.  If we don’t voluntarily give ourselves to Him, in thought and deed, He allows us, in His infinite mercy, to be tossed about by the waves of birth and death in the ocean of samsara and take our own time to come to Him, perhaps after going through every labyrinth of the crisis of intellect. Finally when one reaches the ultimate limit of spiritual progress with the help of intense sAdhana (spiritual practice) he experiences the nirguNa (attributeless) nature of the Absolute and remains in oneness in that Absolute. And then, all the ideas, such as you and I, subject and object, bondage and liberation, vice and virtue, merit and demerit, etc. are all annihilated.

(To be continued)

THE CRISIS OF INTELLECT - Part 2 of 5

The crisis of intellect – Part 2 of 5

The other manner in which the crisis of intellect expresses itself is in an orthodox setting. It is that of a dogmatic pursuit of a ritual or what one holds to be a dharmic principle. Since external exhibitions or expressions of dharma change from age to age a dogmatic pursuit of such an exposition beyond the times for which it was valid can ultimately lead us into a situation where the primary dharma of compassion  and non-violence is jeopardized. In my own experience once in my younger days when I saw the ancient custom  of shaving the head of a middle-age woman who had just been widowed I protested to my heart’s content, spoke to the elders who were responsible for it, tried to argue it out, but  I could not succeed.  I was totally bowled by the elders and I could never get over that bad feeling, more so because it was my elder sister who was the victim!

It is in this breed of arrogant upholding of the so-called Dharma that practices like sati perhaps got generated without an eyebrow being raised. While it is true that Manu Smriti talks of a woman having no independent status  because ‘in her childhood she is dependent on the father, in her youth and middle age on the husband and in her old age on the son’ – the same Manu Smriti insists very emphatically that every man should act in such a way that not a single tear rolls down the cheek of a woman, for, if it does so, continues the Smriti, ‘the person who caused that tear-drop will be destroyed with his whole clan’! If the followers of Manu Smriti had only taken this seriously, women in Hindu society would have been put on the highest pedestal – which is what perhaps is indicated in the Indian habit of addressing or greeting every unrelated woman as ‘Mother’ or ‘Sister’.  But custom and tradition forced themselves away from the spirit of ancient times.

The touchstone of Hindu Dharma is therefore the mental  attitude (bhAva-samshuddhiH, as per B.G.17 -16) with which one acts. One has to analyse oneself constantly. After all the complexities of human life are taken into account, the answer to the question: What is dharma?, repeatedly raised in the Mahabharata, is given by Bhishma to Yudhishtira in Shanti Parva (259-25): Whatever one obtains from being agreeable and loving to all, is in the opinion of the wise, what distinguishes dharma from adharma. An ordinary grocer, Tulaadhaara, instructing a vain ascetic Jaajali, says: (Shanti Parva: 262-9) He who has in his heart always the well-being of others and is wholly given in acts thoughts and speech to the good of others, knows what dharma is. Again Shiva tells Parvati in Anushasana Parva 142- 27 to 32: ‘He who frees himself from the disorder of violence and offers freedom from fear to all beings is the one in unity with dharma. Such a one will have kindness and compassion for all beings and the same sense of unity with all. Simplicity  is dharma, deviousness is adharma. Simplicity and straightforwardness (Arjavam) of character are more important than the acquisition of knowledge. He who aspires to dharma should cultivate these two traits’.

Whether it is a question of interpretation of caste rules, or a question of the meaning of partnership between husband and wife, father and son, teacher and disciple, elder and younger – whatever it may be, the choice between dharma and adharma should be made only on the basis of the presence or absence of an internal selfishness, Even if there is an iota of selfishness in what one is doing or saying, there is the contamination of adharma in it. Selfishness may be of two kinds: one which aims at an ultimate personal benefit or mundane return or psychological satisfaction; or it may be of sense gratification. Only action, word and thought which are totally free of either type of selfishness are dharmic. Pursuit of a dharmic principle as a dogma (irrespective of its social consequences) may ultimately end in nothing but self-gratification that one is upholding dharma. Any time the thought comes to you that you are the upholder of dharma and without you this dharma will decline, you may rest assured that egoism has set in and you have strayed from dharma. This is what may be called the second type of the crisis of intellect.

(To be continued)

THE CRISIS OF INTELLECT : Part 1 of 5

The crisis of intellect – Part 1 of 5

There are two kinds of the crisis of intellect:  that which concerns only one religion, say, Hinduism and the other one which is larger, which dreams of an adjudication among the great religions of the world. We shall first consider the one within Hinduism.  This one again, has two facets.  The first one arises from the often-asked question : Why are the Upanishads being interpreted by different Masters in different ways?  Shouldn’t there be one, unique, correct interpretation of the Upanishads?

The very nature of the Upanishads does not allow one unique interpretation. The Upanishads are a collection of free, candid and detailed discussions between teacher and disciple and it is for the reader to draw his or her own conclusions after assimilating the analysis thus presented and in the light of one’s own spiritual experience, if any. It is here that a Master teacher like Sankara or Ramanuja helps. Even to understand them you will need the physical presence of a teacher before you – a guru. It is therefore not fair to expect the Upanishads to tell you categorically whether this is right or that is wrong. The privilege of making categorical interpretations of the Upanishads has devolved on the great Masters. The fundamental differences in the interpretations by the Masters  should not deter us from understanding the totality that is Hinduism and its philosophy that emanates from the Upanishads. Any attempt to sort out these differences at an intellectual level can become an exercise in futility.  It is desirable rather to follow one of these Masters with single minded faith and try to understand that Master  and his perception of what the Upanishads say. That itself is a life-time occupation.

I know of several friendly Hindu groups in various parts of the world, away from their homeland, who, being well-motivated and genuinely interested in passing on the tradition of Hindu religious culture to the next generation, take off an hour or so every week and collectively attempt to simulate the so-called Indian atmosphere of a bhajan, puja, recitation or a lecture-cum-discussion and the like.  So far so good. But more often than not, a significant part of the time is spent on discussing questions like: Which of our great Masters has the ‘right’ philosophy? The intellectual exercise thus started leads them into a mAyA of confusion and doubt.  Ultimately they see no end to this labyrinth and finally the project itself withers. This is an expression of a crisis of intellect.  Intellect has to bow to faith and intuition in such matters. It is intellectually arrogant to believe that by sitting together for one hour a week and by reading translations (at what order of removal, one knows not) of the great Masters as a hobby, one can adjudicate among them!

The spark of realization and the onset of spiritual becoming have to come through faith and intuition, not through study of books, though the latter may certainly trigger the process initially. The Soul can receive impulses from another soul and from nothing else, says Swami Vivekananda. According to him, ‘this inadequacy of books to quicken spiritual growth is the reason why, although almost every one of us can speak wonderfully on spiritual matters, when it comes to action and the living of a truly spiritual life, we find ourselves so woefully deficient. To quicken the spirit the impulse must come from another soul. The person from whom such impulse comes is called the GURU’.

(To be continued)

Should we believe in Advaita or Dvaita?

This question occurs repeatedly in all public discussions of Hindu Philosophy. In fact we can rephrase the question in a more general form as follows.  Since the great teachers like Sankara, Ramanuja and others differ in their interpretations of the scriptures, which of them do we follow? Is there a possibility of integration of all these interpretations?
Sankara & Ramanuja, the two great propagators of the two major schools of Hindu Philosophy, differ only in one point.  In interpreting the Upanishads, to which of the statements shall we give importance or dominance?To the statements that are obviously absolutist? Or to those that are obviously non-absolutist? Sankara supports the former viewpoint and Ramanuja upholds the latter. This difference in interpretation by these two great teachers has generated a succession of philosophical literature by later thinkers and writers and the body of literature on both sides is voluminous. For us ordinary seekers of God, this difference between Sankara and Ramanuja should not matter. For, said in technical terms, Sankara says that there is ultimately no distinction between God, Souls and Matter because souls and matter are nothing but divine, though in the phenomenal world they appear different. Ramanuja  says that the phenomenal difference persisits in the ultimate also though in a subtle way. Now for us in the phenomenal world, what does it matter whether this phenomenal difference persists in the ultimate or not? Let us cross the bridge when it comes! As far as the phenomenal world is concerned, both Sankara and Ramanuja and all other Masters of the other schools of Hindu philosophy agree that we have to purify our minds through Karma and Bhakti, we have to eradicate, in the first instance, all our undesirable vAsanAs, we have to surrender even our will to God, and work in this world in a totally unselfish manner. Thus the teaching of the great Masters coincide in terms of what we have to do in the real world.  In fact this is why Hindu religion is one in spite of all the differences in the interpretations of the scriptures. We may say that the so-called Reality is probably multi-dimensional (or even infinite-dimensional), but our phenomenal world and our minds are one-dimensional and though the different Masters differ in their descriptions of the infinite-dimensional reality, the one-dimensional projection from any of their descriptions happens to be the same and this is what should matter to us.

Let each of us follow therefore the One Master whom one's ancestors have followed. To ty to adjudicate between Sankara and Ramanuja either on the academic plane or on the ritualistic plane will be far more than a lifetime task and it is not worth it. To try to integrate the two viewpoints on the academic plane will be well-nigh impossible because if that were possible the two Masters themselves (or any two distinguished descendents of the two paramparas) would have done it. The sage Ramakrishna has, with his characteristic authenticity on such matters, given the verdict that it is a question of your own evolution and taste and that we should not attempt to discard one in favour of the other. As far as our daily chores are concerned follow the teachings of both and as far as the logic on the intellectual plane is concerned follow the One Master who is your Master by your tradition and ancestry, for otherwise you will get lost like the grammarian whose grammar could not save him while he was sinking!

Why do devotees suffer?

Q. Why do devotees suffer?

The elementary answer is that God tests them to gauge the intensity of their belief and devotion. This answer is indeed given by many exponents of Hinduism and is also mentioned in some contexts in the Purana literature. But experts in the scriptures do not accept this answer. It was in one of Shri Krishna Premi's lectures that I gathered the right answer to this question. The elementary answer only underestimates the omniscience of God.  He has no necessity to test us, ordinary mortals.  He clearly knows that we will fail in such tests.  But then this theory of God testing His devotees  is certainly true in the case of confirmed intense devotees of the Lord. In such cases, He tests them just to show to the rest of us in the world how intense and effective is their devotion and how far a devotee's faith can carry him.  He knows that they won't fail the test. In our ordinary cases the theory that God tests us is not acceptable. We suffer because of our karma. And we have to suffer it. Hinduism is very clear on this point. In fact Sanatujatiyam in the Mahabharata says that good acts and bad acts do not cancel or compensate each other.  The results of good actions as well as the results of bad actions will have to be experienced as they occur, very often, in parallel.

In fact even in the case of leading devotees they could not avoid the suffering that they had to endure.  But their lives show that when the Lord's Grace descends on them, the most intense suffering could be either transformed into intense delight or, more often than not, God's Grace, instead of wiping out their suffering, provided an insulation of faith which enabled them to be oblivious of that suffering of the BMI.