LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 50.PROGRESS AND FRUSTRATION

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

50. PROGRESS AND FRUSTRATION

The world operates on the idea or assumption that we are constantly improving or progressing. The image of science and technology, the commercial and industrial complexes, the economic and educational establishments,the media etc give us this constant message that we are advancing. But those who are able and willing to see beyond the surface note the problems and pains, the suffering and squalor, and the unsolvable new problems created in the very name of progress and development: much of science and technology is devoted to war and violence; despite claims of economic progress, over one third of mankind suffers from hunger, want and poverty; nature, which is the basis of sustenance is itself threatened.

Modern society glosses over realities. Economic pundits gather in fashionable star hotels to discuss ways to deal with poverty. Air, water, soil, the rivers and seas-everything is polluted;yet half the scientists question the facts, while the other half does not know what to do or how to go about it. The media spreads the merry images of happy people- all youngsters, enjoying everything. The sight of old age, sickness and death turned a prince Siddhartha on the road to Buddhahood; modern barons of society would not let knowledge of reality to percolate down. A modern version of William Blake's The Chimney Sweeper states:

And because I am happy,& dance & sing,

They think they have done me no injury,

And are gone to praise  God & his Priest and King,

Who make up a heaven of our misery.

(Taken from The Norton Anthology, World Masterpieces, Vol.II, 7th edition, p.541)

As Shailendra, our master celluloid poet wrote 60 years ago:

Rasta wohi, aur musafir wohi,

Ek taara na jaane kahan chup gaya

Duniya wohi, duniyawale wohi

Koyi kya jaane kiska jahan lut gaya

The world goes by appearances. Unless catastrophe strikes wholesale or on a mass scale, society will not recognise or react. But by then it may be too late, the 29th day! Only, now we don't go to praise God or his priest or king, but the new demigods- the scientists, the technocrats, the economists.

All the ancient traditions of the world held the contrary view that humankind started in a pristine state, and had progressively declined. The original golden age has turned into iron age- the dark age. Religion was the answer to the deterioration. They all stressed the inner state of man.

Even taking a historical religion, we see that the Judeo-Christian tradition started with the idea of a 'fall'- the expulsion and fall from Paradise. If we don't lose our head in the literal nonsense, and see the symbolic nature, we at once see the beauty and majesty of the idea and its truth: humanity has been or got alienated from the original consciousness of Unity of Existence- call it paradise, God, what you will. Regaining that original consciousness is the real spiritual or religious endeavour. To the extent we are all born in a society which operates with such an alienated understanding, we all partake of the 'original sin'.

We in India are only aware of the missionary version of Christianity- full of mischief, malice and propaganda. And we loathe their vulgar conversion efforts. But these things should not blind us to the inner core of truth and beauty. It does not mean the solution  given by their priests is correct. In the theological version, Satan tempts Eve and Adam, induces them to eat the forbidden fruit and thus disobey God. God knew it and yet kept quiet! Satan was his own creation, no less than Adam and Eve, yet God did not correct them, allowed them to fall, and then punished them for the disobedience! What kind of God is he? Which parent would allow a child to commit a mistake and then punish it for the same?

These problems arise because a symbol or allegory is taken as the literal truth.

We Hindus start with the idea of karma. But how did karma start at all? We say, it is 'anaadhi'- without beginning. So, we take it as given. We don't know the why of it.

Our Sages do not enter into the questions of origin at all. It is the preoccupation of philosophers, ending in no insight but endless speculation and dispute. And knowing the origin solves no problems. So, sages take the situation as it is and give a way out. They say no matter where we are, we may get out. As the old stories used to say, when some one is hit by a poisonous arrow, should we enquire into the origin  and nature of the arrow or  seek a remedy?

The three modern Masters we have been considering all gave us such a practical approach. Sri Ramakrishna came particularly at a time when English education was blinding our youth to the truth of our religion, missionaries were leading them away, and reform movements were leading them astray. He sat in Calcutta, the seat of imperial power and centre of modern education, spurning bread-winning education and taught mainly educated people how to practice religion and spirituality. He pointed out the truth of our traditional religious practises and showed us what was relevant and effective for the modern age.The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna is a complete  manual of practical religion for all Hindu aspirants.

It is now fashionable in certain quarters to talk of Sri Ramakrishna as the advocate of harmony or equality of all religions. It is true that he undertook certain exercises in Sufi form of Islam and Christianity. But at no time he took proper initiation in them, or practised them beyond three days! And Sufism is not accepted by many Muslims as real Islam at all! Unless one gets 'baptised', one is not treated as a Christian at all! Any one can read the Bible and claim to follow Christianity! In the circumstances of religious strife which prevailed then, Sri Ramakrishna did point out that all of them reached the same goal. It is not the same thing as saying that all religions are equal! Hindus have never sought to convert others, have always been the targets and victims of conversion. If Ramakrishna's message on harmony has any relevance at all, it is for the Muslims and Christians but they do not accept him as their authority! So long as Muslims and Christians do not give up their conversion aim, any talk of inter-religious harmony is pure bunkum, and sheer hypocrisy, plain idiocy.. Those RK Math monks who indulge in such talk are fooling themselves and fooling us, and doing grave injustice to Sri Ramakrishna and damaging the interests of Hindus. No less an authority than Holy Mother herself said, on one occasion when a disciple mentioned the subject of inter-religious harmony vis a vis Sri Ramakrishna, the following:

My son, your idea about the harmony of religions is all right.But I do not think that he followed various religions in order to teach this idea.Day and night he was immersed in the thought of God , and was absorbed in ecstasy.He delighted in experiencing  that same One God through the various paths/sects of Hinduism and through Christianity and Islam. As for me, Thakur's great/chief characteristic was his renunciation. Can we witness such natural renunciation in any one else? Renunciation  alone was his ornament.

(Recorded in the detailed biography of Holy Mother in Tamil by Swami Asutoshananda, 2008, page 127. The above is my translation. See this also in the biography by Swami Gambhirananda, p.463)

Sri Ramakrishna respected all religions and all holy people. It does not mean he gave up his own religion, or valued others above it. Apart from the period of his sadhana (about 3 days each) he did not follow any of the Christian or Islamic practices. His attitude to Hindus converted to Christianity is well illustrated in his reaction to Michael Madhusudan Dutta, a well-known lawyer and literary figure. When he met Sri Ramakrishna, he disclosed that poverty made him convert to Christianity- something that did not please  the people around. Later, Dutta sought some spiritual instructions from the Master but he said 'he felt as if some one was pressing his mouth shut and not allowing him to speak.' After some time his mood changed and he sang some devotional songs,but gave no instructions.

(See:Sri Ramakrishna and His Divine Play: Swami Chetanananda, Vedanta Society of St.Louis,2003, p593-4)

On 4 January,1884, M  was sitting with the Master and mentioned that Keshab Chandra Sen's health had deteriorated. They then fell to talking about his Brahmo Samaj. Sri Ramakrishna said that though Keshab had at one time thought high of Christianity and accepted their views,  he had now accepted Mother Kali , repeated her name and chanted Her glories. He then asked M what he thought- whether the Brahmo Samaj would develop into a sort of social-reform organisation. M replied :

The soil of this country is different.Only what is true survives here.

Sri Ramakrishna said:

Yes, that is so. The Sanatana Dharma, the Eternal Religion, declared by the rishis will alone endure. But there will also remain some sects like the Brahmo Samaj. Everything appears and disappears through the will of God.


(The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna,1996, p378)

This entry is important. It shows Sri Ramakrishna's attitude towards Hinduism- the religion declared by the rishis.After Keshab came in contact with our Master, his views gradually changed, he accepted the idea of God as Mother which led to dissensions within his ranks. At the same time, there have been numerous sects, most of them with reform agenda. Mahatma Gandhi stole the thunder from the Brahmo Samaj- combining social reform with constructive social service and  economic revival, but after him, it has all degenerated into political activity. But the most disturbing fact is the so called secular govt. itself has become the agent of reform, which mostly takes an anti-Hindu turn.

Sri Ramakrisna's sole concern was God Realisation and one could not get a single idea from him for any reform- on questions like child marriage, widow remarriage, women's education, caste, etc. Gandhi took on too many things and made a mess of everything-including Independence, which resulted in Partition. In no field did he succeed.

It was the same attitude with the other Masters too.Sai Baba lived before the freedom movement mecame mass-based, but Sri Ramana's period fully coincided with it.  Many of his devotees and visitors had also been followers of Gandhi. But Bhagavan was totally aloof, detached. People were free to follow what they would, but they could not make the Asramam a ground for their experiments. The Asramam was a place for spiritual discipline; those who were qualified and earnest found a silent guide in Bhagavan, with no words exchanged. Those who were not ripe but eager, could learn or gain something from the very atmosphere. The uninitiated could just come and go. Each thus gained according to his attitude, interest and intensity. 

Sri Ramana was the least conventional and orthodox in his teaching- which is generally not appreciated enough. He was in fact revolutionary.

 Sri Ramakrishna expounded the Bhagavata religion- simple and direct devotion to God-his authorities being Narada, Bhagavata, Gita, Adhyatma Ramayana. Above all was Mother Kali. He positively discouraged Vedantic sadhana and encouraged people to worship Mother- while upholding the truth of all paths. This was tailored for householders in this Kali Age, who were the overwhelming majority of his devotees and followers.Some form of spiritual discipline, and a definite attitude to God was essential. He extolled renunciation, but not in the external form of Sanyasa for all. Catch hold of the feet of God with one hand, and work in the world with the other, was his advice to householders.

Sai Baba appeared unconventional for a Hindu in his dress and some expressions. But his instructions were exactly conventional- have a guru, respect him as God, do not neglect family traditions  and           conventions in the matter of worship, fulfil your vows faithfully, do regular spiritual sadhana,- these were his main instructions. He asked people to read specific devotional works of Marathi saints, as almost all his visitors were Marathi-speaking.

A remarkable aspect of Baba's ministry was that he could tell devotees what they missed- some might have vowed something to their family deity but forgotten, some might not even know their family deity or guru etc. Baba would direct them. Many people came seeking him, but he would direct them to their own gurus. Many visitors also beheld their tutelary or ishata devta in Baba! It was such small but intimate acts which bound people to him- not flashing miracles.

One unconventional aspect of Baba was demanding dakshina- but as Arthur Osborne pointed out, this seems to have been symbolic. eg: two rupees might mean two essential qualities- sraddha and saburi-faith and patience; 5 rupees could mean surrender of the indriyas to the guru, etc. But he did not ask dakshina from all, nor would he accept from all. He said he asked  only those from whom it was due- who could say, it was from which birth? He said he collected dakshina only from those who belonged to him. He would insist only on particular sums, very small, and refuse large offers. It would happen that he demanded the exact amount some one had vowed but forgotten! The whole thing is mysterious. And all the collections would be distributed to needy people. Towards the end, huge amounts came to him- it attracted the notice of Income Tax  people- even in those days! But nothing would remain with him. After he died,  only 16 rupees were found there!

Bhagavan Ramana was unconventional, though people did not realise. He was the least free- constantly surrounded by followers. But most of them did not follow his method- yet they wanted to benefit by being in his company! We have no clear idea of what an Asramam is! Gandhi had two Ashrams- in Sabarmati and Wardha- where the inmates were trained in some discipline, had to follow regular routine. Sri Aurobindo's Ashram was a place for Sadhana- but individual. The inmates pursued their own methods, with guidance from Mother. The inmates could submit their questions or doubts which Sri Aurobindo would answer patiently, but they could see him only on 4 or 5 occasions in the year! That was not an Ashram which depended on charity- so every one had to do the work assigned by the Mother! It was not a place for idle assembly or mere contemplation! Even today, most people have no idea of the concept. Sri Aurobindo's Yoga was not the world shunning type.

Sri Ramanasramam was also different. ( I am writing of those days.) Most devotees lived in other towns, had jobs and could visit only on holidays. The place was away from the town, like a jungle and so for their own convenience they built some sheds . Bhagavan had laid down that donations should not be solicited.Visitors were expected to meet their expenses. With the steady increase in the number of visitors some organisation and facilities became necessary and with it came controls, regulations, etc.It was not all smooth all the time. 

The surprising thing was that though every one came for the sake of Bhagavan, Bhagavan was himself least concerned with these doings, unless some matter was referred to him. Often he had to remind visitors: "Mind the work for which you came here." Bhagavan thus kept himself distinct from the Asramam management.

Which was all to the good, because some people were not welcome in the Asramam, some did not like it.Even when the management prohibited some one from visiting Bhagavan, Bhagavan would go out to meet them! Ladies could not stay there, nor could any one stay for long ,except with special permission. But some staunch devotees made arrangements to stay nearby, so that they could visit Bhagavan daily. Lady devotees had written about the hardships they faced in doing so.

The highlight/ main activity was just to sit in the Hall with Bhagavan, mostly in silence. As there was no formal teaching, it was entirely up to the individual to derive  benefit.

Thus the word Asramam does not mean the same in all cases. I have been visiting Sri Ramanasramam from 1970 and have seen the changes over the years. In the prevailing political and social conditions in Tamil Nad, it is difficult for spiritual institutions to function, especially when they do not cater to popular demand or meet popular ideas, especially when they are considered elite.In short, when they do not pander to local chauvinism.

This can be seen clearly in case of Sri Aurobindo Ashram. From the early days, it was an elite institution. Sri Aurobindo had said that his yoga was not for every one, and that only those who felt the call would take it up. They never made any publicity, nor called people to come. Though Sri Aurobindo lived and worked there in Pondicherry for 40 years, the local population or those in neighbouring Tamil Nad did not read his works, because they were all in high English. But when some Tamil writers started writing about 'miracles' or such things connected with the Mother, the cult of the Mother spread and gripped the people. The most prominent among them was Karmayogi. His essential message was  that the Yoga was tough, but Mother could be approached for worldly favours, even if they did not intend to follow Yoga, provided they observed some methods!

But the Ashram has also been the target of pro-Tamil and other chauvinist groups whenever a political issue crops up, be it anti-Hindi agitation, anti-Srilanka agitation, etc. I have found that both in Tiruvannamalai and in Pondicherry, the local people are against the Ashrams! They seem to be unaware that these are international centres and are not meant to cater to local whims! They cannot assume local colour!

I found such prejudice even in some educated quarters. Once I was talking to a writer and social worker. He complained that after all, Sri Aurobindo Ashram had not done anything for the local people! I asked him to explain. After some fumbling, he said there were so many poor people,the living and sanitary conditions were bad in Pondicherry and the Ashram had done nothing to improve matters! I asked him what his idea of the Ashram was- a charitable organisation, social service organisation, reform movement, or what? Had he read their statement about the aims and activities of the Ashram? Had he read Sri Aurobindo's writings on the subject? Should every "Ashram'" do the same things, and jump into social/ religious/ charity activity? Can he accuse the Indian Institute of Science of not doing slum improvement work? or undertaking flood or cyclone relief? He could as well accuse them of not reducing unemployment in the city!

On the contrary the Ashram had been there for all to see: a self-contained community; with simple but elegant and neat buildings, with no litter around; an aesthetic touch everywhere; their show-rooms are so well laid and organised; their products- be it agarbattis, hand-made paper, ayurvedic medicines the best of their kind; one of the best printing presses in India with reputation for quality printing and binding; all the inmates assigned some productive work; their inmates moving about simply on bicycles ; a quiet touch of efficiency everywhere; a neatly maintained and decorated Samadhi, with complete silence, in spite of so many daily visitors! I said they had all been there all the time and why the locals could not emulate any of them? How dirty was the Manakkula Vinayakar temple just across the street! The Ashram was responsible for that too?

The point is: the govt is inactive; civic authorities are sleeping; there are so many dissensions and groups among them; not many of them are really educated. They only have the mob mentality and mass psychology: they feel that if they gather in numbers, they can force themselves in - the law enforcers are in their hands! And the public has no civic sense or consciousness! They have no sense of order, no eye for beauty. But they feel satisfied if some one else is criticised!

The real question is : Pondicherry is a State capital. It has the state bureaucracy, a central university, a highly publicised medical establishment. What have they contributed to Pondicherry?

It was said about the French Revolution that one of its causes was that 'the nobility did not pay; the clergy did not pray; the common man was asked both to pay and pray'. Now, in India, the govt. does not govern; the govt. hospitals do not heal; the govt. schools cannot teach. But the common man is taxed at all levels- the corporation, state and centre. Most of this tax revenue goes to feed the bureaucracy, which does not know what hard work or productivity or creativity is.

One important lesson Mahatma Gandhi taught us was self-help and self reliance. During the freedom movement , he led agitations. But he also undertook many 'constructive'  activities in the social and economic spheres, without having any  official power. Where has that spirit gone since Independence? We can neither make the govt. work, nor work ourselves! But we find fault with those who mind their own work!

.