LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT 63, LIFE OF THE MIND

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

63. LIFE OF THE MIND

'Life of the mind'- this is perhaps the best way to describe a life devoted to academic interests. These interests may or or may not express themselves in external pursuits and outside activities or achievements such as publications and presentations. But the interests themselves are ever present and active.

The easiest way to express it used to be writing letters to the editors of the newspapers. Those days- 30 years ago- the editors cared for such letters, especially the ones written in serious vein, with clear arguments. I cherish two such moments. 

Once, in Ahmedabad, in 1978 or 79 I read a series of articles in The Indian Express on Indian philosophy, by one Lalit Uniyal. It so happened that the last article appeared on Sankara Jayanti, and it happened to be critical of Sankara, quoting Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo. It troubled me, and I wrote a long reply, refuting Uniyal, quoting extensively from the works of Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo! I gave all references from the original sources, citing chapter and verse. To my surprise, I found the whole reply published the next day- occupying half the page, the entire "letters to the Editor' space!

 Sankara has been criticised as being a Mayavadin, denying the reality of the world.  But this is a severely technical point, not what its popular statements by its interpreters and critics make it out to be. Vivekananda has at times expressed slight differences, but over all he is a Sankarite, ie Advaitin. Sri Aurobindo is also Vedantin, though he does not accept the interpretation of Sankara as the last word. The reality is ultimately one- Ekam Sat-  on this all orthodox Indian philosophers are agreed. They only differ in detail. Sankara says Brahman alone is real. Then what is the status of the world? Since Brahman is the sole Reality, the world has to be  reflection of it- as such, as Brahman it too is real; but considered as a reality by  or in itself, ie as apart from or independent of Brahman, it cannot have reality! This is the experience of all the genuine mystics of all faiths of all times of all countries of the world. If you perceive Brahman, how can you see the world? "Drishtim jnanamayim kritva, pasyet brahmamayam jagat" - ie for one who has risen to the state of wisdom, the whole world appears as Brahman! What Sankara says is a matter of experience, not a point for argument! No argument can prove or explain parental love, (or any love) for instance. It has to be experienced. Sankara says the world is Brahman, not maya! Yet his critics call him Mayavadin! I find Sri Aurobindo too doing this!

I find that Sri Ramana Maharshi alone has dealt with and disposed of this issue satisfactorily from a theoretical point of view. Who experiences or witnesses this world, so that the question of its reality is raised?  It is we who experience the world. But who are  "We"?  What is our reality? Without knowing our reality, how can we investigate the reality of the world? So he says 'find out who you are' and then talk about the world. This has been called his"brahmastra".

Sankara is pure philosopher; so he talks of Brahman. The theistic philosophers talk of the world as the manifestation of  God. As the Gita says,  Brahman is God. So where is the problem- except in the mind of the doubter, the inexperienced? Experience alone silences all questions, not argument. Indian philosophy pursues  and prescribes experience-darshana- and not speculative arguments. 

The other time I wrote a serious letter to an editor was to Sri A.S.Raman, when he was editing Swarajya. I had been a regular reader of Swarajya since the late 50s, but gave up after the demise of Rajaji in Dec,72. Later, it changed its format and Raman, earlier associated with The Illustrated Weekly took over as editor. It started covering film matters rather extensively. Earlier too something used to be written on the subject occasionally by V.P.Sathe, but not regularly or extensively. I felt that when there were other film magazines, Swarajya too need not cover it.I felt that a name associated with Rajaji should not descend to cover films.So I wrote to the editor, expressing my reservations and displeasure. He wrote to me a personal letter in reply, saying that many people, including women, were interested in filmy matters and as an editor of a journal meant for the general public, he could not ignore the popular wishes! 

In recent years I have found that editors of mainline newspapers like TOI, The Hindu do not really care for readers' opinions- especially when their own editorial views are seriously questioned and refuted! They may permit one line expressions, but not serious arguments! So much for freedom of expression! They are all know-alls! I find the same attitude to on-line responses too! Someone recently wrote an article, in the name of secularism, criticising a Hindu leader for asking Hindus to have four children. I responded asking why he did not criticise the Muslims for marrying three women, ( which may automatically mean more than 3 children) or for divorce saying 'talaq' thrice, or for not singing Jana gana mana' or Vande Mataram or not talking of Mother India. The on-line editor did not allow it 'as it violated ' their policy. So you know what these people mean by secularism!

Our popular newspapers and periodicals thus spread cliches and slogans and stifle genuine criticism. What they say is 'secularism'. They alone are 'intellectuals'. They are like Humpty Dumpty, making words mean what they wish them to mean. Why spend money on a dictionary, or take the trouble to leaf through the bulky volume? The editors know best!

I had seen other sides of the life of mind. I had a junior colleague, a mother of two school going children, herself the daughter of a university professor. She was intelligent,  an intellectual type and qualified too. This, and the fact that she was a woman led to lot of resentment among men- especially the professional lawyers, accountants, the MBAs etc with whom we had to deal in our dept. She knew her job well, knew the tricks the professionals employed, and would call their bluff. I would find the logic, and justice in her stand and support her. The professional, and perhaps the male pride too would be hurt and they would complain about her blunt words and rude manners- they could find nothing else. She got frustrated and depressed. I consoled her, saying this was the world, we were part of a hierarchy, and had to take such things. I suggested to  her, as was my wont, to take up some academic studies to engage her faculties. She replied: 'Sir, I am already 35 and in a job. I left college long ago. Which university would admit me?' I asked her to forget Indian universities and apply to some US university. She liked the idea, but was not hopeful. She did apply to some 5 top US universities, including Harvard. I did not know that she had given my name as a reference. One day, I got a letter from the dean for admissions from Harvard, asking me how I considered her suitable for an MBA programme, when she was already  a govt. employee and had been out of touch with academic work and discipline for some years. I wrote back, giving my honest assessment of her strengths and plainly stating her  weaknesses that I perceived, especially her impatience with labour unions,and inability to tolerate professionals who tried to outwit the system, and also stated why I considered her suitable: academic interest was a habit of mind, India was undertaking reforms when bureaucrats had to learn to honour and respect international commercial conventions and best practices, and the commercial world had to learn to tap and tackle the bureaucracy, and a candidate like her would serve as the ideal bridge. I did not think much about it. But she got admission to the MBA program, the university gave her credit for her practical experience,she did brilliantly and passed out topping her class of international students! Can such a thing happen in India? The US has many undesirable aspects, but we should appreciate the good things too! No society could prosper if it did not have some genuine merit!

Following her, another of her colleagues also went to another US university. Both of them are top executives with international firms.

Some economic base is necessary to devote to a life of the mind! This is where we Indians are stuck. For most of us the economic aspects- anna vicharam- are predominant. Our mind is exercised on the means of livelihood- first the all-important degree, then a job, etc. Where then is the scope for focusing on academic interests?

But even when there is some scope, there is no avenue. What facilities do we have for continuing education? Should all education programmes end up in degrees or diplomas or certificates? Can we not learn for the fun and pleasure of it? We now have many 'open' universities. But they too prescribe eligibility conditions. Why? Should there be any condition for any one to learn poetry or philosophy other than mere interest? Why should age matter? 

We have far too many restrictions- like set combinations of subjects: physics, chemistry, maths; zoology, botany, biology; commerce, economics, computers; etc. Why can't it be left to students to choose what they want to combine and study? If you major in physics in graduation, you can't take up chemistry in post-graduation. Why? If you study maths, you cannot shift to economics or commerce. But why? The colonial past has made Indians slaves of empty rules and silly systems. We are adept at looking at or creating problems; we still need foreign experts to find solutions! All these are symptoms of absence of any life of mind!

The result is: we have forms, but lack substance. We have schools, but they cannot teach- so we take tuition; hospitals, but they cannot heal,  only bleed your pocket, so we take insurance; police, but they harass citizens, more than catch culprits, so we don't dare file FIRs; we have too many laws, but too little governance; too much bureaucracy, but too little sense. Too may temples, but too little sense of reverence for life, or even cleanliness even around them. We have expanding forest depts, but shrinking forests. We have courts, and increasing numbers of lawyers, but need years to get justice.  The ultimate is that we have growing GDP, but also growing poverty and misery, but we will change the indices or the parameters, to show things are better than they are!. We cannot tackle inflation, but will change the base year! The banks take our money and make profit, but we have to pay to withdraw our own money! Some banks even charge you if you deposit cash! We even had a Finance Minister who imposed a tax on withdrawing our own money! All these show how minds at top levels do not function! Yes, that is the life of their mind!

For real education to thrive and the life of mind to take off,education has to be delinked from jobs. A plumber, fitter, electrician needs to be professionally competent. But what qualification makes a bureaucrat competent? So much store is set by the IAS qualification. But how many of them are competent on the job? Did they manage any public sector bank and show profit? Or run the Indian Airlines ? Could they run any corporation successfully? It is the power behind them and their networking and nexus with the politicians, that make them tick, not any ability. We read of so many officials of British India who made fundamental contributions in many areas:  land survey, revenue settlement, irrigation, agriculture. It will be interesting if any one could show what the IAS has contributed to free India!

Life of the mind need not necessarily be concerned with lofty philosophical issues. It can tackle down to earth issues, and make day to day life less difficult and more tolerable for the majority, ordinary citizens.