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.

Tit-Bits continued

7       Daksha and Sishupala are the only two people who criticises the Lord right iun His face.

8.       Sannyasa is the stage where you have to make every one happy; because you have to rise above all likes and dislikes.

9.       ‘Sorrows are unavoidable in life; but sufferings are optional’ –the Buddha.

10.       Sorrows are of two kinds: Sympathy (anukampana) and Self-pity (kRRipaNatA or klaibyaM). The latter is wrong. To overcome self-pity (which is nothing but a weakness of the heart), three challenges have to be met: Accept uncertainties of life; Dissolve desires; Have a detached purpose of action.

11.       Face uncertainties of life. The only thing that is certain is the fact  that  nothing is certain.

12.       The root of all desires is fanciful thinking, known in Sanskrit as Sankalpa. Ignorance gives rise to sankalpa. Sankalpa gives rise to desire. And Desire gives rise to sorrow. Sankalpa-prabhavAn kAmAn, says the Gita 6 – 24.

13.       Mind-oriented desires are to be overcome by Intellect.  Intellect itself has to be then overcome by a change in the goal of life.

Sita's summary of Vedanta in two shlokas

Sita’ summary of Vedanta in two shlokas

I heard the following from a lecture of Dr.  Veezhinathan (in Chennai) several years ago:

In her weakest moment of captivity  in the Ashoka Grove in Lanka, Sita decides to take away her own life  and after going through a woeful recall of all her sufferings, she gears up to congratulate, appreciate and revere all those ‘mahAnubhAvulu’ (Great meriorious persons) who can take pleasure and pain alike: She says (Valmiki Ramayana: Sundara Kanda- 26 – 49,50):

dhanyAH khalu mahAtmAno munayaH satya-sammatAH /

jitAtmAno mahAbhAgA yeshhAM na staH priyApriye // 49 //

priyAn-na sambhaved-duHkhaM apriyAd-adhikaM bhayaM /

tAbhyAM hi te viyujyante namas-teshhAM mahAtmanAM //50//

Meaning: Great souled ones with abandoned sins, with a conquered mind, those who are anchored in Truth, sages are indeed fortunate to whom there is no pleasure and pain. From pleasure sorrow and from pain great fear do not occur to great souls. Whoever are thus dissociated  from both pleasure and displeasure, my obeisance to such great souls.

Sita has actually remembered at this point the great saying in Chandogya-Upanishad VIII – 12 – 1:

Maghavan, martyaM vA idaM sharIraM AttaM mRRityunA / tat asya amRRitasya asharIrasya AtmanaH adhishhTAnaM, Atto vai sa-sharIraH, priyApriyAbhyAM, na vai sa-sharIrasya sataH priyApriyayoH apahatir-asti, asharIraM vA va santaM na priyApriye spRRishataH //

Meaning: It is true that the body is perishable, but within it dwells (it supports) the bodiless imperishable Self. This body is subject to pleasure and pain; no one who identifies with the body can escape from pleasure and pain. But those who know they are not the body pass beyond pleasure and pain to live in abiding joy.

In the Gita also Lord Krishna is never tired of emphasizing this:

‘with mind undisturbed in the midst of sorrows and free from desires in the midst of pleasures’ (2 – 56)

‘equal in failure and success’ (4 – 22)

‘neither rejoices on obtaining what is pleasant, nor sorrows on obtaining what is unpleasant’ (5 – 20)

‘He who neither desires the pleasant and rejoices at its touch nor abhors the unpleasant and sorrows at its touch’ (12 – 17)

‘He who regards happiness and suffering alike, gold, mud and stone as of equal value, to whom the pleasant and the unpleasant, praise and blame, honour and insult,.. etc. are equal things’ (14 – 24)

‘unelated by success, undepressed by failure’ (18 – 26).

MAN AND ANIMAL

Man & Animal

I was reading the book ‘The First American’ by H.W. Brands published by Anchor Books in 2002 – incidentally, it is a wonderful book that should be read by all who believe that they can shape their own character by reading good biographies --.

Almost in the very beginning I came across the following passage:

QUOTE

I was once emptying the cistern of nature, and making water at the wall. At the same time, there came a dog, who did so too, before me. Thought I: ‘What mean and vile things are the children of men, in this mortal state! How much do our natural necessities abase us, and place us in some regard, on the same level with the very dogs’.  Additional reflection inspired a determination to transcend the gutter in which men’s bodies were consigned to live. My thought proceeded: ‘Yet I will be a more noble creature, and at the very time when my natural necessities debase me into the condition of the beast, my spirit shall, at that very time, rise and soar and fly up towards the employment of the Angel’. ….

UNQUOTE

The ability to identify one’s dharma in a given set of circumstances is what distinguishes human beings from animals. In Hitopadesha, we have the following shloka:

‘AhAra-nidrA  bhaya-maithunam ca sAmAnyam-etat pashubhir-narANAm /

dharmo hi teshAm adhiko visheshho dharmeNa hInAH pashubhissamAnAH //

meaning,     Hunger, sleep, fear and the sex urge are common to men and animals. But the understanding of dharma is the extra quality of man, and without dharma he is just an animal.

According to the dharma shAstras a brahmin ceases to be a brahmin the moment he does one of the following: (this is not an exhaustive list!) (i) defaults on his GayatrI japa, (ii) sells his knowledge (iii) accepts a bribe (iv) urinates, like an animal, while standing, or (v) copulates without wanting a progeny.  If we dare apply this criterion, most of the so-called brahmin-born moderns (including the writer!) should be considered to have lost their brahmin-hood!!!

Some tit-bits

1.       When the Guru refers to the Atman as a ‘nitya-vastu’, we do not understand it because we have not seen anything that is nityam. Whatever we see is only anityam. That ia why Guru says: The Atman is something which is different from everything that you have seen or known.

2.       Ishvara is JnAnam + MayA.  But Guru is JnAnam only.

3.       Guru has three facets’  He gives the JnAna-janma; He protects jnAnam; and he destroys our ajnAnam. So Guru does the three fundamental duties of Creation, Protection and Destruction.

4.       Ramana’s selection from Shivanandalahari: Shloka nos. 61,76, 83, 6, 65, 10, 12, 9, 11, 91.

5.       Shankara & Ramana taught the same advaita vedanta.  Only their personalities were of two different types.  Shankara was dynamic Ramana. Ramana was static Shankara!

6.       At the end of Kenopanishad, there is a concluding statement that tapah, damaH, karma are the three pillars that support the entire brahma-vidyA. Swami Chinmayananda’s remark (made in a lecture) on this is remarkable: tapaH is controlling the mind from sense wandering. damaH is controlling the sense organs from sense objects. These two conserve the mental vitality. They must be spent in the karma, - service of the people!