BEWARE OF INTERPRETERS

              SAINTS WILL AID

              5.  BEWARE  OF INTERPRETERS 

In course of time, the teachings of Sages come to be translated and also interpreted by succeeding generations.  These traslations and interpretations/  commentaries come to acquire more importance than the original texts themselves. In India, these texts are mostly in Sanskrit  in its ancient form. They are intelligible only to those who take time  and pain to learn them; such persons are few at any time. So, very few go to the original sources. 

The authority for Hindu religious/philosophical teaching is the 'Prastanatraya' : Upanishads, Brahmasutras and Bhagavad Gita. All our philosophical systems are based on interpretations of these sources. No Acharya has gone to the Veda, which is the very foundation. An impression has been created that the Veda deals with rituals and that the philosophical ideas are to be found only in the Upanishads, which break away from the rituals. It obscures the fact that the Upanishads are very much part of the Veda, an integral part, and no contradiction is involved betwen the two.

Among the modern Masters we are considering, one fact is clearly noticed. None of them depended on the authority of ancient sources to buttress their teaching, and cited them in support of their teaching. Their teachings are based on their exprience. They may refer to the ancient teachings in their conversations with devotees because the latter were familiar with them, to elucidate a point, but not as proof. Ramana Maharshi used to say clearly that he taught  on the basis of his experience, it is the others who found that it tallied with the old teachings.

This creates complications. Most followers/commentators want to enlist the support of the old authorities, and  interpret the Masters in the light of old teachings, and miss what is new. But those who want to prove the uniqueness or superiority of their chosen masters go to the other extreme, and deny the relevance of the old teachings! The truth is in the middle: No genuine Master is merely a copy or echo of an old one, but they do not break the old system either: they come to fulfil, not to destroy. In the spiritual world, the Truth is One, and as old the Creation! The sages merely explain, highlight aspects according to the needs of the times. This we see clearly demonstrated in the life and teachings of the three modern Masters.All the three Masters accept the authority of Vedanta as the final truth, but none of them has merely echoed or repeated the teaching of any old authority.

Sri Ramakrishna, we saw, stressed the way of Bhakti as shown by Narada as the way to liberation in our age. (We find that the same way is more or less reiterated by Rama to Shabari, by Prahlada  to the Asura children, and by the Yogi to king Janaka in the 11th Skandha of Bhagavatam!) He did not deny the truth of Karma or Jnana, but merely said that in the conditions of the modern world Karma could not be preformed properly as prescribed in the scriptures; and so long as we were conscious of the body, we could not, in all honesty, claim that we could pursue Jnana. So long as we could not get rid of the ego, 'let the rascal remain as the servant of God' he said. Sri Ramakrishna decried no previous school, though he pointed out the risks in following some like Tantra which he did not consider suitable or safe for this age.

This is exactly where Ramana comes in. Is there an ego at all? Is it absolutely true? If you investigate the ego, you find it is not there!  (Ulladu Naarpadu,25)Normally, it is the ego (mind) which goes in search of Truth. It is like the thief  acting as the policeman searching for the thief!  (Talks- 43,238,615) Ramana's method has been called the way of Jnana, but Ramana himself called it self-inquiry. It differs from the classical form: the old method focussed on Brahman, investigating the reality of the world, Ramana's method focusses on finding the source of one's own self ie self attention. People were not wanting in his own time who were wondering whether he taught Vedanta or Siddhanta! Sri Muruganar gave the effective reply: Ramana taught "Ramananta"!

 Scholars wrote commentaries on his works , based on their own beliefs. Once Lakshmana Sarma complained to Bhagavan that some Sanskrit translation did not reflect the original accurately. Bhagavan did not criticise it, but merely said: 'then, why don't you write your own?'  He did, submitted it to Ramana for correction, and Bhagavan did make many changes! But such problems arise only for those who cannot follow the original.  ( Among the many who came to Bhagavan, only Muruganar and Lakshmana Sarma came without any previous knowledge of Vedanta, though they were otherwise learned! They expressed to Bhagavan dfficulty in following the ideas of the Forty Verses. Bhagavan personally taught and explained it to them; they were thus privileged.) 

It is not that Sri Ramakrishna did not talk about or approve of Jnana; he explained it beautifully, but also its difficulty..

"Yes, one may reach Him by following the path of discrimination too; that is calld jnanayoga. But it is an extremely difficult path. i have told you already of the seven planes of consciousness.On reaching the seventh plane the mind goes into samadhi. If a man acquires the firm knowledge that Brahman alone is real and the world illusory, then his mind merges in samadhi. But in the Kaliyuga the life of a man depends entirely on food. How can he have the consciousness that Brahman alone is real and the world illusory?"

"What is jnanayoga? The jnani seeks to realise Brahman. he discriminates, saying ,''Not this,not this'. He discriminates , saying,'Brahman is real and the universe illusory'. He discriminates between the Real and the unreal. As he comes to the end of discrimination, he goes into samadhi and attains the Knowledge of Brahman."

"What is the meaning of jnanayoga? It is the path  by which a man can realise the true nature of his own Self; it is the awareness that Brahman alone is his true nature."

 Or that Sri Ramana did not talk of Bhakti. He always said,'inquire or surrender'; surrender is the last stage of Bhakti- atma nivedanam. In the entire bhakti literature, it is difficult to find more moving Bhakti hymns than the Five Hymns to Arunachala. In over fifty years, Sri Ramana never even once criticised other schools, or taught self-enquiry to any one on his own! Once, Kavyakantha Ganapati Sastri said that Bhagavan prescribed self-enquiry, which was a tall order, for every one, regardless of their preparation or qualifications. Bhagavan merely said he but taught what he " knew or had experinced". He used to explain that ultimately one came to self-enquiry consciously or unconsciously. For instance, Yoga means union; it assumes there is separation! For whom is the separation? It is for me. Then, Who am I?This question has to be faced, and answered in the end by every one on any path! These are explained clearly in the 'Forty Verses'. Sadhu Om has also explained them, based on Bhagavan's teaching alone.

Sri Aurobindo's Yoga is  a predominantly psychological method, what in the olden days used to be called RajaYoga, but broader than that. But it incorporates karma and devotion as well- that is why it is Integral Yoga! Sri Aurobindo's Yoga invokes absolute Divine help for its performance, and is not based on human effort alone.

"It is the lesson of life that always in this world everything fails a man- only the Divine does not fail him, if he turns entirely to the Divine."

"To find the Divine is indeed the first reason for seeking the spiritual Truth and the spiritual life; it is the one thing indispensable and all the rest is nothing without it."

"Yoga is directed towards God, not towards man."

"This yoga demands a total dedication of life to the aspiration for the discovery and embodiment of the Divine Truth and to nothing else whatever." 

 

 He has very clearly enunciated both the differences from and common aspects with the old systems.

"I have never said that my yoga was something brand new in all its elements....it takes up the essence and many processes of the old yogas- its newness is in its aim,standpoint and the totality of its method."

"Why should there be anything new? The object of spiritual seeking is to find out what is eternally true, not what is new in Time."

"I have said that this yoga is "new" because it aims at the integrality of the Divine in this world  and not only byond it and at a supramental realisation. But hoe does that justify a suprior contempt for the spiritual realisation which is as much the aim of this yoga as of any other?"

Sri Aurobindo said his yoga was new as compared with the old because:

• it aims not at a departure out of world and life into heaven or Nirvana, but at a change of life and existence
• the object sought after is not an individual achievement of divine realisation  for the sake of the individual, but something to be gained for the earth-consciousness here
• the method is as total and integral as the aim- the total and integral change of  the consciousness and nature

 

As Sri Aurobindo has himself explained in his statment, his teaching starts from that of the ancient stages, but does not stagnate there. And even while accepting the old teachings, he has gone to the very source- Veda. But in his view, the Vedic rishis aimed at individual perfection,but did not try to make it part of earth-consciousness. The subsequent Rishis tried to state  the Vedic insights in intellectual forms; the later commentators tried to make it more logically rigorous. In this process, some aspects of the original insights were obscured, and resulted in mayavada.. This is what Sri Aurobindo rectified. His method:

• draws attention to the basic insights of the Veda, but aims to make that consciousness part of the earthly life
• regards the world as real, and not as illusion or unreal
• does not advocate running away from the world or renouncing it
• integrates all the human faculties and their methods- will: karma; emotion: devotion, and mind control: Yoga, as such.

The real difference between Sri Aurobindo and all the previous authorities lies in his conception of the nature of the ultimate goal, and what it involves in living.

So far, Sri Aurobindo has largely escaped the labours of 'interpreters'. Or, the interpreters have all been from the 'inside'. However, Sri Aurobindo is one Sage whose main means of communicaton was writing, and he wrote so clearly in English that one who knows English reasonably well  does not need any interpreters: one could always go to him direct. Those who do not know English are surely at a disadvantage. His writings are almost impossible to translate in many languages, and any translation would lose the mantric power of his  original writings. This, those who have read the original writings and translations do clearly experience. 

There is no difficulty at all in studying the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna- they are so clerly stated in the 'Gospel'. Those whose language is Tamil can follow the original writings of Sri Ramana, with a little application; for others competent translations are available. Sri Aurobindo's writings are in English; it appears tough and his style is not something Indians are used to- but it can certainly be read in the original, again with a little application. In no case we need interpreters.

Note: I always quote from the Masters themselves, from authoritative publications from the authentic sources- Sri Ramakrishna Math, Sri Ramanasramam, and Sri Aurobindo Ashram. Sri Aurobindo's writings are extensive and even on a single point, he has expressed himself from many angles. These are brought together in neat compilations. The quotations today are all taken from the publicaton 'The Integral Yoga', Second Impression,1996. Very useful compilations are also made by Dr.A.S.Dalal. 

Victory of the Victorians-2

        POEMS  AND  POETS

       40. VICTORY OF THE VICTORIANS-2

However important colonialism might appear to be for us now, it was not the most important issue for the Victorians. In any case, colonialism was not new and the renewed focus it received was itself due to other factors, which were vastly more important.

These related to various branches of science. In 1830s Charles Lyell published 'Principles of Geology' which proposed that the earth had developed over extended periods of time. Charles Darwin published 'Voyage of the Beagle' in 1839 and 'On the Origin of  Species' in 1859, proposing natural selection  as the basis. But some of his ideas were current even before this time. The idea that species might become extinct in the absence of the right conditions was propounded by Robert Chambers in 1844. But the word 'Darwinism' coined by Thomas Henry Huxley caught on., and was applied to a range of ideas about evolution. Sociologist Herbert Spencer coined the terms 'survival of the fittest' and somehow it got blended with ideas of Darwinism,viz natural selection. By 1870s the idea of "social Darwinism" had gained currency. If it is only a fit species that survives in nature, why not apply this to society?If a society expands, prospers and gains, it is only by its superior nature! In course of time, this served as the basis of Fascism, Nazism and ideas of ethnic cleansing. Renewed interest in Imperialism and its association with ideas of racial superiority was also an off-shoot of this.

But the real effect of these developments on British society was shattering. If the geological findings were true, then the Biblical time-scale ( that the earth was created in 4004 B.C.) was wrong! If the species were propagated by natural selection, the Biblical story of creation was wrong! Thus in one stroke, the foundations of Christianity were shattered. By this time, 'science' had gained respectability as a profession, people had started studying about science in earnest, facilitated by the spread of literacy and print media. No one who was 'educated' could take the Bible seriously. Even earlier, German scholars had questioned the historical basis of the Bible. Faith in organised Christianity was collapsing.

One specific incident  of the times is legendary. The British Association in Oxford convened a meeting in June,1860 to consider the issue of 'evolution'. ( 'On the Origin of Species' had been published by Darwin in 1859). Hundreds of people had gathered. Bishop Wilberforce of Oxford had come prepared to establish the superiority of the Church doctrine. During his speech, he turned to scientist T.H Huxley, and taunted him, asking whether he claimed descent from monkey from his grandfather's or grandmother's side! Huxley did not lose his cool; he explained lucidly and simply the basic ideas involved,  pointed out the ignorance of the Bishop, and concluded by saying that descent from monkey was not so  shameful as  keeping company with people who obscured truth! The crowd overwhelmingly supported Huxley and Wilberforce stood humiliated. You can say this is the public funeral for Christian Faith in the Victorian era. It was indeed Science which was the real victor in the Victorian age!

However, Huxley himself was not an atheist, but only agnostic. (Agnosticism was again a word coined by Huxley himself) One statement of Huxley is worth remembering:

"There is some one kind of matter which is common to all living beings, and that their endless diversities are bound together by a physical as well as an ideal unity"

                                                        Lecture 'On The Physical Basis of Life',1868

Well, this is as much philosophy as science!

These ideas of science had their repercussions in literature. This is the special characteristic of English literature: it responded to each age and was in turn shaped by it. We do not see this in other countries, in India for instance. During the same period, Mughal rule had ended in India; thousands of Muslims had been massacred and hanged in Delhi; the seven old cities of Delhi had been sacked; the old way of life and an entire civilisation was collapsing. But how many literary figures talked about it,wrote about it, sang about it? We find only a Mirza Ghalib writing about those conditions in Gazals and private letters in Urdu which not many people read; but our smart academics have interpreted it as the pessimistic outpourings of one man! Incidentally, it raises questions about the existence of a 'national' political consciousness at this time. Did people at large consider the Mughal ruler as the national king or emperor or Delhi  as the national capital? Then, why has no one written about it in any other language?

But the Victorian loss of Faith in the authority of the Church and the certainty of its teachings is a major element in their literature in all forms. How it affected society is recorded in novels by Dickens; how it affected individual psyche and the inner landscape of man is depicted by Hardy. It becomes a big theme in poetry. We saw how disturbed the Romantics had been  in the aftermath of Newton  and they turned to Nature. But developments in science had disturbed that Nature further, and had knocked faith in God out of reckoning. Where could man now turn to? Gerard Manly Hopkins  tried to reconcile science  somehow with religious feeling, but others were sure that the tide of faith was ebbing out. Mathew Arnold wrote:

DOVER BEACH 1867

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd;
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.
.............
.................for the world,which seems
To lie before us  like the land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful,so new,
Hath really neither joy,nor love,nor light,
Nor certitude,nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and fight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.



The first part merely records the poet's impression that faith was fading; but the latter part is prescient. It tells us that with loss of faith, there is now no joy,love, or light; certitude is gone, there is confused struggle and fight by ignorant armies. Within 50 years after these lines were written, the nations which tried to  civilise the world , all following the Book, were engulfed in the Great War; and in another 20 years, in the Second World  War. 

Tennyson too captures some of these problems in his poetry.
'The Charge of the Light Brigade' is about the British spirit of conquest, "theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die", sort of obeying the dictat of the times. 'Ulysses' (1833) is a song of the spirit of the times, of unending voyage and conquest: 
 "To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
    Beyond the utmost bound of human thought."

But where would it all lead to? Human thought had no bounds at all and in the words of Macaulay:

"A point which was invisible yesterday is its goal today, and will be its starting point tomorrow."

Extend it , and it becomes invisible in turn! Science makes everything uncertain! So what could man make of life? Darwin's  theory of origin of species was published in 1859, but the ideas were current before that. It was believed that Nature was concerned with whole species and not about the preservation of the individuals  and that even whole species had suffered extinction .(Georges Couvier, 1769-1832)This thought must have disturbed the faithful. Tennyson was surely seized of the matter. In his long poem In Memoriam, he takes up the issue:

IN MEMORIAM   (55)

Are God and Nature then at strife,
     That nature lends such evil dreams?
        So careful of the type she seems,
So careless of the single life,

That I, considering everywhere
     Her secret meaning in her deeds,
     And finding that of fifty seeds
She often brings but one to bear,

I falter where I firmly trod,......

56


"So careful of the type?" but no.
     From scarped cliff and quarried stone
      She cries, A thousand types are gone;
 I care for nothing, all shall go.

"Thou makest thine appeal to me.
     I bring to life, i bring to death;
     The spirit does mean but the breath:
  I know no more." And he, shall he,

Man, her last work, who seem'd so fair.
     Such splendid purpose in his eyes,
      Who roll'd the psalm to wintry skies,
Who built him franes of fruitless prayer,

Who trusted God was love indeed
     And love Creation's final law-
     Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
 With ravine, shriek'd against his creed-

Who loved, who suffer'd countless ills,
     Who battled for the True, the Just,
      Be blown about the desert dust,
Or seal'd within the iron hills?

No more? A monster then, a dream,
     A discord. Dragons of the prime
     That tare each other in their slime,
Were mellow music match'd with him.

O life as futile, then, as frail!
     O for thy voice to soothe and bless!
     What hope of answer, or redress?
Behind the veil,behind the veil.

What hope is there for man then? Other species had come and gone before him, so he too shall go!

There rolls the deep where grew the tree.
     O earth, what changes have thou seen!
     There where the long street roars hath been
The stillness of the central sea.

The hills are shadows, and they flow
     From form to form, and nothing stands;
     They melt like mist, the solid lands,
Like clouds they shape themselves and go.       (123)

Scientific knowledge has supplanted faith, but has given nothing but doubt and uncertainty. Each new discovery brings a new level of uncertainty, more profound doubt. So, Tennyson makes a simple U-turn and comes back to faith!

O, yet we trust that somehow good
     Will be the final goal of ill,......

That nothing walks with  aimless feet,
     That not one life shall be destroy'd,
     Or cast as rubbish to the void,
When God hath made the pile complete;

Behold, we know not anything;
     I can but trust that good shall fall
     At last- far off- at last,to all,
And every winter change to spring.

'In Memoriam' was written over many years, but published  in 1850. The ideas do not run in a straight line, but the passages written at different periods do reflect the poet's varying ideas and reactions about science, till he is so thoroughly disillusioned that only a return to simple faith could satisfy him. This he states clearly at the beginning:

Strong son of God, immortal Love,
     Whom we, that have not seen thy face, 
     By faith, and faith alone, embrace'
Believing where we cannot prove;

Thine are the orbs of light and shade;
     Thou madest Life in man and brute;
     Thou madest Death; ....

Thou wilt not leave us in the dust:
     Thou madest man, he knows not why,
     he thinks he was not made to die;..

Our little systems have their day;
     They have their day and cease to be;
     They are but broken lights of thee,
And thou, O Lord, are more than they.

We have but faith: we cannot know,
     For knowledge is of things we see;
     And yet we trust it comes from thee,
A beam in darkness, let it grow.

Let knowledge grow from more to more,
     But more of reverence in us dwell;
     That mind and soul, according well,
May make one music as before,

But vaster.

Strong statement of faith, expressing the hope that knowledge and faith will be reconciled in a vaster harmony. But that was not to be. As the century advanced, science made steady inroads into the both human intellect and heart. Faith was completely disowned by the educated class. But the poem is pervaded by a  strong sense of  doubt . Personally I like the assessment of T.S.Eliot  best:

"  It happens now and then that a poet by some strange accident  expresses the mood of his generation, at the same time that he is expressing a mood of his own which is quite remote from that of his generation.......Tennyson himself on the conscious level......consistently asserted a convinced, if somewhat sketchy, Christian belief......he had a good deal the temperament of the mystic- certainly not at all the mind of the theologian....Tennyson is distressed by the idea of a mechanical universe.......(but) The hope of immortality is confused (typically of the period) with the hope of the gradual and steady improvement of this world........an interesting compromise between the religious attitude, and what is quite a different thing, the belief in human perfectibility...... 
It is not religious because of the quality of its faith, but because of the quality of its doubt."
                         From: The Selected Essays of T.S.Eliot,1932

But we must note one fact. 19th Century science triumphed over organised Christian teaching- Christian theology based ideas of creationism. It did not mean Science had disproved Religion as such. Religion is more than Christianity, and their infantile ideas of Biblical creation are not the last word on the subject. But as the century advanced the fact of science V.Christian theology was presented as Science V. Religion as such; it is this notion which holds the common mind even now, even in Asia.It was scepticism, agnosticism which triumphed at the end of the Victorian age, dyed in stark intellectual colours and clothed in powerful and attractive labels and formulae. This is the ultimate victory of the Victorian Age. In this light, it has not yet ended. Whatever might be advances in astro-physics or particle physics or in other areas, it is the 19th century ideas which still run the establishment.

Note: The idea that nature favours groups over individuals for preservation is not new to us Indians. There is the well known passage in the Mahabharata which says that an individual can be sacrificed for  the  family, the family for the village, village for the country etc. I think the Greek story of Iphigenia and Agamemnon too illustrates this point!

Victory of the Victorians!-1.

            POEMS  AND POETS

             39.VICTORY OF THE VICTORIANS!-1.

Victoria became the Queen in 1837. She died in 1901. Her reign has come to be known as the Victorian Age.It was characterised by unbounded belief in Progress, unstoppable expansion, and mobility.

We may say the age really began in 1830, when railway line opened between Liverpool and Manchester for scheduled passenger traffic. It annihilated our old notions of time and distance, and provided a new dimension to mobility. As the age advanced, momentous changes shook society, the chief being the scientific advances, with Darwin's ideas of evolution topping the list. The 1857 rebellion in India had been brutally crushed, and India became the crown-jewel of Britain's colonies, Victoria being proclaimed Empress! This had given the Englishmen ideas of their own racial superiority, prompting some of them to proclaim that it was England's mission to civilise the world! Rudyard Kipling wrote of "the White Man's Burden"!

British colonialism had been spreading since the 17th century. But some thinkers had noted the greed behind it. Thus even in 1785, William Cowper wrote:

 Doing good,

Disinterested good, is not our trade.

We travel far,'tis true, but not for naught.

The loot and mal-administration of the Company in India had prompted Edmund Burke to prosecute Warren Hastings for impeachment. However the over all mood was one of imperialistic ambition, and Britain's role to civilise the world. Wilkie Collins, in his 1868 novel The Noonstone depicts how greed propelled imperialism. The story centres around a big diamond stolen from an Indian temple.  We are surprised to see even Romantic poets like Wordsworth and Coleridge expressing imperialist  sentiments. In 1814, Wordsworth wrote in Excursion:

So the wide wide waters, open to the power,

The Will,the instincts, and appointed needs

Of Britain, do invite her to cast off

Her swarms, and in succession to send them forth;

Bound to establish new communties

On every shore whose aspect favours hope

Of bold adventure.....

Your Country must complete

Her glorious destiny. Begin even now.

Similarly, Coleridge later said:

"Colonisation is not only a manifest expedient- but an imperative duty on Great Britain. God seems to hold out his finger to us over the sea."

It was not lost on the people that this meant a cultural conquest. Thus, Anna Barbauld wrote in Eighteen Hundred Eleven:

Wide spreads thy race from Ganges to the pole'

O'er half the western world thy accents roll:

....Thy stores of knowledge the new states shall know,

And think thy thoughts, and with thy fancy glow;

Thy Lockes,thy Paleys shall instruct their youth,

Thy leading star direct their search for truth;

Beneath the spreading Platan's tent-like shade,

Or by Missouri's rushing waters laid,

'Old father Thames' shall be the port's theme,

Of Hagley's woods the enamoured virgin dream,

And Milton's tones the raptured ear enthral,

Mixt with the roar of Niagara's fall.

And this is exactly what happened when Macaulay introduced his scheme of education in India in 1836: we were taught to think their thoughts, imitate their manners- something which is continuing still, after we attained nominal Independence over 60 years ago! (Anna Barbauld was actually a radical and supported non-conformist causes, and predicted the collapse of Britain's dreams of wealth.) But Kipling's 'The White Man's Burden' beats all.

The White Man's Burden  (1899)

Take up The White Man's burden, Send forth the best ye breed,

Go bind your sons to exile, to serve your captives' need;

To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered fold and wild-

Your new caught sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White man's burden, No tawdry rule of kings,

But toil of serf and sweeper, The tale of common things,

The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread,

Go mark them with your living, And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden, ye dare not stoop to less-

Nor call too loud on Freedom, To cloke your weariness;

By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do,

The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White man's burden, have done with childish days-

The lightly proferred laurel, the ungrudged praise,

Comes now to search your manhood, Through all the thankless                                                                                                    years,

Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The  judgment of your                                                                                                    peers!

This poem has been interpreted in various ways. Some feel it is just a satire. Some see philanthropic ideas in it. But given the overall approach of Kipling to imperialism, it is clear that it speaks of a political and cultural mission on the part of Britain to civilise the world- where people are half-devil, half-child! Such views combined with Christian missionary activities to perpetuate the myth of the British empire where the sun never set.

However, the gods mock at our puny efforts. Kipling wanted Britain to send the best it bred. But the likes of Clive and Warren Hastings did not represent the best breed! It is certainly a great irony that perhaps the best bred Briton to come to India was Lord Mountbatten with his Royal blood, and he came to liquidate the empire!  He was so eager to get rid of the burden of India!Jai Hind!

SPIRITUAL VISION

        POEMS  AND  POETS

                       38. SPIRITUAL VISION

A  great poet makes us see ordinary things in extraordinary light. But the greatest is one who can make us see eternity in the passing, universe in a grain of sand. Poets of some periods seem to be seized by some dominant feeling or sense or vision, which they impart to the whole age and society. In India we speak of 'ashtadikgajas' or 'navaratnas' adorning the court of some fortunate king. In English poetry we have periods like Elizabethan, Romantic, Victorian when the poets were motivated by some one major idea or theme or force.

The Victorian age was marked by high intellectualism, represented by Tennyson and Browning. But the age preceding was one of  "unaccountable spiritual impulse, insistent but vague in some, strong but limited in one or two, splendid and supreme in its rare moments of vision and clarity" ( Sri Aurobindo). The poets then sought to pierce the veil of appearances and bring before us the spiritual truth behind. Their language attained strange heights, even when talking of common things. Wordsworth and Coleridge, Blake and Byron,  Keats and Shelley represent such a moment. Not all of them attained the same great height or kept it for long but the glimpse they got was sufficient to power them, and to provide us aesthetic pleasure and spiritual stimulation. Some like Wordsworth wrote too much and dissipated their energy, like Browning later; some like  Keats and Shelley died young, before they could ascend their full height, but what they left behind is remarkable.

Let us consider two poems of Shelley.

 PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY

LOVE'S PHILOSOPHY

The fountains mingle with the river,

     And the river with the ocean;

The winds of heaven mix for ever,

     With a sweet emotion;

Nothing in the world is single;

     All things by law divine

In one another's being mingle:-

     Why not I with thine?

See! the mountains kiss the heaven,

    And the waves clasp one another;

No sister flower would be forgiven

     If it disdained ts brother;

And the sunlight clasps the earth,

     And the moonbeams kiss the sea:-

What are these kissings worth,

    If thou kiss not me?

Apparently a love poem, but the images invoked make it sublime. And it brings to us the basic fact of the universe: all things are connected!

Shelley talks of the mountains kissing the heaven. Our own Majrooh Sultanpuri has another image of mountain- of mountain sleeping on the lap of clouds!

Sare haseen nazaare, sapnon mein kho gaye

Sar rakhke  aasman pe, parbat bhi so gaye!

All the beautiful scenes around me, have vanished in my dreams

And the mountain has also gone to sleep,

keeping its head on the sky!

THE CLOUD

I bring fresh showers for the thirsting flowers,

     From the seas and streams;

I bear light shade for the leaves when laid

     In their noonday dreams.

From my wings are shaken the dews that waken

     The sweets buds every one,

When rocked to rest on their mothers' breast,

     As she dances about the sun.

I wield the flail of the  lasting hail,

     And whiten the green plains under,

And then again I dissolve it in rain,

     And laugh as I pass in thunder.

I sift the snow on the mountains below,

     And their great pines grew aghast;

And all the night 'tis my pillow white

     While I sleep in the arms of the blast,

Sublime on the towers of my skiey bowers,

     Lightning my pilot sits;

In a cavern under is fettered the thunder,

    It struggles and howls at fits;

Over earth and ocean, with gentle motion,

    This pilot is guiding me

Lured by the love of the genii that move

     In the depths of the purple sea;

Over the rills,and the crags, and the hills,

     Over the lakes and the plains,

Wherever he dream, under mountain, or stream,

     The Spirit he loves remains;

And I all the while bask in Heaven's blue smile,

     Whilst he is dissolving in rains.

The sanguine Sunrise, with his meteor eyes,

    And his burning plumes outspread,

Leaps on the back of my sailing rack,

     When the morning star shines dead;

As on the jag of a mountain crag,

     Which an earthquake rocks and swings,

An eagle alit one moment may sit

     In the light of its golden wings,

And when Sunset may breathe, from the lit sea beneath,

    Its ardours of rest and of love,

And the crimson pall of eve may fall

    From the depths of heaven above,

With wings folded I rest,on my aery nest,

     As still as a brooding dove.

That orbed maiden with white fire laden,

     Whom mortals call the Moon,

Glides glimmering o'er my fleece-like floor,

     By the midnight breezes strewn;

And wherever the beat of her unseen feet,

     Which only the angels hear,

May have broken the woof of my tent's thin roof

     The stars peep behind her and peer;

And i laugh to see them whirl and flee,

     Like a swarm of golden bees,

When I widen the rent in my mind-built tent,

     Till calm the rivers,lakes, and seas,

Like strips of the sky fallen through me on high,

     Are each paved with moon and these.

I bind the Sun's throne with a burning zone,

     And the Moon's with a girdle of pearl;

The volcanoes are dim,and the stars reel and swim,

     When the whirlwinds my banner unfurl.

From cape to cape, with a bridge-like shape,

     Over a torrent sea,

Sun-beam proof, I hang like a roof,

     The mountains its columns be.

The triumphal arch through which I march,

     With hurricane, fire, and snow,

When the Powers of the air are chained to my chair,

     Is the million-coloured bow;

The sphere-fire above its soft colours wove,

     Whilst the moist Earth was laughing below.

I am the daughter of Earth and Water,

     And the nursling of the Sky;

I pass through the pores of the ocean and shores;

     I change, but I cannot die.

For after the rain when with never a strain,

     The pavilion of Heaven is bare,

And the winds and sunbeams with their convex gleams

     Build up the blue dome of air,

I silently laugh at my own cenotaph,

     And out of the caverns of rain,

Like a child from the womb, like a ghost from the tomb,

     I arise and unbuild it again.

This is a long poem but as we say, every expression in it is worth  a lakh of rupees- 'akshara laksham'.  Obviously it is about the cloud, but the cloud here stands for something more fundamental. The poem speaks of rain, moisture, hail snow, etc that the cloud causes. But it also shows how everything  in nature is connected, inter-linked and interdependent. But more than this, it shows how nature is an unending cycle, where the form keeps changing but the substance remains.  It is here that he comes close to our own philosophy. According to Hindus, while nature constantly changes, there is no destruction as such, in the sense of something going out of existence, as there is no 'creation' in the sense of something coming out of nothing. What is normally called creation is just'manifestation'- coming out of a hiding, so to say; at the end of the cycle, things again go out of manifestation: involution, preceding evolution. Srishti and pralaya are eternal cycles of manifestation- continuous evolution, change, transformation, involution and so on, again and again. This is what Shelley is conveying here: the continuous metamorphosis or transformation of nature. Our very words-jagat, srishti,  pralaya indicate this unending cycle.

It is also remarkable that Shelley does not regard the phenomena of nature as inanimate, but endows them with personalities. In this, he has recovered the soul of all the ancient religions of the world for whom forces of nature were endowed with divine attributes or personalities."I change, but I cannot die"- what supreme Wisdom is this! "I silently laugh at my own cenotaph- I arise and unbuild it again": how beautifully the self-renewing power or activity of nature is revealed here! Nobody can write "Finis" to Nature, though its forms will keep changing. This is the truth revealed ( or hidden?) by the dancing form of Nataraja!

The figure of cloud is very dear to us. At the conclusion of Sandhya upasana, everyone utters a prayer:

Aakaasaat patitam toyam, yatha gaccahti sagaram,

Sarva deva namaskaraha: Keshavam pratigachchati.

Just as the rain water caused by the cloud  falling anywhere will ultimately have to reach the sea, so do our prayers, to whichever deity  addressed, reach the Supreme. 

The cloud is formed by the sea waters evaporating, and it comes back to the earth and sea as rain, river and water!

This poem by Shelley is one of the truly metaphysical poems in the English language. Sri Aurobindo reserved his high praise for Shelley:

'The spiritual truth which had possession of Shelley's mind was higher than anything opened to the vision of any of his contemporaries, and its power and reality which was the essence of  his inspiration can only be grasped, when it is known and lived, by a changed and future humanity. Light, Love, Liberty are the three godheads in whose presence his pure and radiant spirit lived; but celestial light, a celestial love , a celestial liberty."

                                                       From: The Future Poetry, part I, chap XVIII
                                                        Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 2000.

     

     

Sai Baba of Shirdi

              SAINTS WILL AID

              1. SHIRDI SAI BABA

Sai Baba of Shirdi is probably the most popular Saint in India today. His following has grown over the last 100 years without any organization, any hierarchy, any successor. It has spread entirely by word of mouth  of actual followers. And almost every one has become a follower after an event considered a 'miracle', or some such event has occurred soon after becoming one. No one who came to him returned 'empty handed'.

We do not know whether he was a Hindu or Muslim. His dress was a long 'kafni' like that of a Muslim fakir. But his ears had marks of having been bored like a Hindu. He sat in a dilapidated masjid, renovated by Hindus. But he called it "Dwarkamai" -Mother Dwaraka. Baba had a 'dhuni' going there all the 24 hours,to which he fed fuel with his own hands. The 'udi'- ashes from this was given to everyone by Baba with his blessings, himself applying it on the forehead of devotees often.There were oil lamps in rows, burning bright. There was a Tulsi Brindavan in the front courtyard. He invoked Allah Malik or Fakir, but allowed Ram Navami and Krishna Janmashtami to be celebrated in the masjid with all pomp and ceremony. Bhajans were conducted regularly with all the traditional musical instruments. He himself was worshipped by Hindus in the Hindu fashion, complete with Aarti,blowing of conch shells, ringing of bells. He never preached about Islam to the Hindu followers. He was not observed saying the namaz, though he was familiar with the Quran. On one occasion when a Hindu who had converted to Islam came before him, Baba slapped him on the face,asking whether he was not ashamed to change his father.He encouraged Ramayana, Bhagavat and such other Hindu devotional literature to be studied or recited with due reverence. His talk was the purest Vedanta, of which he had the most intimate knowledge. Never in the form of a general talk or discourse, it was always addressed to a specific person, tailored to his immediate needs.. He had appeared to his devotees in the form of their own family or favourite Deities like Rama, Krishna. He insisted on people honouring  their traditional gurus, their family deities. fulfilling their vows, keeping up the sacred observances, festivals, etc. On one occasion, when he had to  give evidence in a court case, he stated his caste as 'parvardigar', his religion as 'Kabir" and his Guru as "Venkusa". Parvardigar means something like the Hindu 'Atiashrami', beyond all social distinctions; Being a Kabir means not having formal affiliation to any religion but treating  and respecting all alike, especially Hinduism and Islam. Venkusa is of course a Hindu name. His Hindu devotees far outnumber those of other faiths, though all come to him.
Let us also remember that days prior to his Samadhi, Baba asked a devotee to read Ram Vijay in his presence. He also indicated that he would occupy the Wada constructed by Buti, where he inteded to erect a mandir for Murlidhar!

 Does it now matter whether he was a Hindu or Muslim?

In the course of time, it is often the devotees who paint the Saints in a particular way, foist some rituals on them, make them appear as belonging to this  or that tradition. Or create a tradition or sect around them. Thus, the management of Ramakrishna Order went to the Court, declaring that Sri Ramakrishna was not a Hindu, that they were following 'Ramakrishnaism', and that they should be considered a separate sect, and a minority! All because they wanted to run some educational institutions! Curiously, some followers of Sri Aurobindo approached the court pleading that he should be considered Hindu! The court declined.

We see another curious development in the case of Ramana Maharshi. As we see now, the official set-up shows a distinctly orthodox south-Indian Brahminical flavour, complete with Vedic chanting, ritual worship and other ceremonial observances in the orthodox fashion. Even his teaching is given a distinctly Vedantic-Advaitic colour, of the Sankara School. But if we read Sri Ramana's own works, we do not get any such idea at all! The only teaching of Ramana was to enquire and find out the reality of one's own existence, one's own self.  The only dictum was: 'Enquire or Surrender'. He never advocated any particular philosophy or theology. He never followed any particular guru or tradition. His only attachment was to Arunachala, a hill outwardly, but the Self within, and of the Universe. His only worship was by circumambulating the Hill. He did not leave Arunachala even for a day in 54 years, and walked on it bare-footed. 

Every practice surrounding him was initiated by devotees on their own. The educated devotees and followers who came to him were mostly from the middle class families, orthodox south Indian brahmins. Most of them were of the Smarta tradition, following Sankara. There were others also from other traditions. So, their talks, questions, understanding and interpretation were from that standpoint. In answering them, Ramana had to use the words and concepts familiar to them. But this he did in respect of all: he spoke to men of each faith on their own terms. In the beginning, he lived by begging, sharing  it the with the few who kept him company. As visitors  started coming in numbers, they brought some offerings like fruits or sweets, which were shared on the spot, though this was found inconvenient. Later. in 1917, when his Mother came to stay with him, she started cooking out of the things received, in the way she knew- as in South Indian brahmin houses.The visitors were mostly the middle class South Indians,  some of whom desired to stay for long or short periods. So they arranged cooking and other facilities to cater to their needs  and tastes, after Mother's samadhi in 1922. Since Ramana had no personal agenda,he submitted to what his followers arranged. In course of time a  type of management, with brahminical touches, emerged. Even the later formal management was decided by the devotees. 

The origin of some of the practices is noteworthy. In the beginning, Sri Ramana was simply wandering on the hill and chose some old temples or cave for stay.Soon people started coming and one or two stayed with him. They used to read some old religious books and recite devotional  hymns of the old Saivite saints, or the verses rendered by Ramana in Tamil. Later, some Vedic pandits visiting from the town started  chanting the Veda. Ramana would sit listening attentively, self-absorbed. But orthodox elements objected to this, on the ground that such recital took place in a burial ground which was not approved. The pandits referred the matter to Ramana, who told them to decide for themselves! He had not initiated it, and had no mind ,one way or the other. Some of them decided to continue. Later, in the 30s, a foreign devotee, Major Chadwick, who had settled in the Ashram took initiative to have a Vedic school started there. About the only thing Ramana said about Vedic chanting was that it helped one to concentrate or meditate better!
Ramana did not want any new practice or reform started in his name or presence. In those orthodox days, brahmins and other did not inter-dine.So in the Asramam too, the common food was served to brahmins and non-brahmins alike, but seated separately, with Ramana sitting in the middle. Some reform minded brahmin youth would try to break the arrangement, saying  such separation should not be followed in the Asramam. Ramana would ask them whether they followed the reform in their own homes! This silenced them.

It so happened that South Indian brahmins were fond of coffee and started making and taking it, clandestinely. Ramana knew it, but let them enjoy their game. But once he told them if they wanted coffee, why not make in the open? Once, some one from the group offered coffee to a foreign visitor, saying it was 'prasad'. This gentleman had his doubt and asked Ramana straight. Ramana told him bluntly it was no such thing, those people wanted coffee, so they made it and drank it, but merely used his name! This is how traditions are created. Thus he was himself a prisoner of the 'establishment' that grew around him- a point at times  made by Sri Aurobindo, in good humour!

 But his teachings are so universal, they can be interpreted in terms of any religion, or no religion at all. Surrender for instance is nothing other than 'Islam' -submission  to the will of God! Enquire who you are, is nothing other than "Know Thyself". Insistence on finding your true Self is nothing other than finding "The Kingdom of God is within you". His  prescription to know "Who Am I" is strongly reminiscent of the Biblical saying " I AM THAT I  AM"-the only words to be printed in capital letters in the entire Bible , as Ramana himself pointed out. Even venerating the Mother's Samadhi is not far different from the Muslims venerating their Dargahs! His teaching is close to Buddha's own teaching- there is no philosophy, no theology, but only a practical method! In other hands, an entirely different system of worship or ritual could have been developed! Or, it could have been regarded as what people nowadays call "spiritual but not religious". I am not suggesting that what has happened  or prevails is wrong, but only that it is just one of the many possibilities! Akin to exactly how we give a name and form to the Formless and Nameless Supreme!

Even so it is with our Baba. There are orthodox elements who object to Hindus venerating Baba. But they overlook one historic fact. In the last 1000 years, India has been subject to foreign invasions and rule-both political and religious. India has declined in all respects- her glory is just a-n-c-i-e-n-t! Even her economic supremacy declined after the mid-18th century.  Orthodoxy has totally declined in all spheres. If Hindu orthodoxy is so infallibly correct, eternal as they would describe it- why has it fallen? Why were the Gods for whom such magnificent temples were erected not willing or able to prevent the Muslims from  desecrating or destroying them? Our own free Independent govt. has by legislation interfered with and altered many orthodox Hindu laws. What could orthodox establishments do about it? How many advocates of orthodoxy are sincere- eg. how many of them who talk about the greatness of Veda let their own children study the Veda in the orthodox manner?And how many of those who so study use their knowledge except as source of income? How many of them even study Sanskrit?  Do our marriages now comply with orthodox requirements?And has any head of any orthodox Mutt been able to prevail upon his own followers not to let their girls seek employment, as demanded by orthodoxy? How many Sanyasins do now live alone in the orthodox manner, as in the olden days? Maintaining and supporting the Mutt itself has become the main orthodoxy now!

The philosophical and cultural achievements of Hindus are great indeed. In some respects they are also unique. India is the native home of Hindus and it is the only home, as Hinduism does not believe in proselytising and converting other countries or peoples. So it must retain its predominantly Hindu character. But Hindus cannot live in splendid isolation any more!  Providence has poured every race, language, religion etc into India as the rivers pour their waters into the ocean! India has absorbed  everything and still remained India! This is what we have to  safeguard.

It is where Saints like Sai Baba  function as the instruments of Providence. How he forced his followers to keep their own dharma and traditions! How he instilled in them the basic moral virtues and religious spirit! How he forced them to remember and honour their own family deities! How he got local temples renovated, maintained and honoured! How he always held up before them the spiritual goal!

More than anything, his appeal undoubtedly rests on his ability to bring succour to suffering people. This is  happening even now, 96 years after his Samadhi. Sages may quote scripture and say one has to pay for one's past karma. Sages know the Truth, and expound Wisdom. But Saints help people directly, and bring light and happiness into their lives. Saints prepare the way for Sages. But where the Saint is also the Sage, what more can one aspire for? Sai Baba of Shirdi was one such. As he himself said, he gave people what they wanted so that they could be prepared to take what he himself wanted to give viz spiritual knowledge. Very much like the mother offering children some candy or chocolate, to induce them to take the medicine!

Orthodox religion is high-brow. It is based on the belief that the higher reaches of society should follow their dharma, which would set the example for the whole society. It is fine, like the modern mainstream economic orthodoxy, advocating 'trickle down' theory. Only, it doesn't work in practice: what trickles down is misery, not wealth or prosperity, which stagnates in limited pools. In the last 1000 years, orthodoxy has been on retreat in India. Literally, mutts moved places, murtis from temples were taken away and hidden, etc. It was not orthodoxy which helped people  face Muslim conquests or prevent conversion; it was the work of poet-saints who took simple practical religion  to the door steps of the people, speaking and singing in their own languages! Or like Samarth Ramadas  who showed people practical ways to outwit the restrictions imposed by the sultans and badshah on Hindu religious worship.  They brought the high philosophy to the common man, from the grand sutras to the ground level. They filled the gap created by the very failure of orthodoxy! Sai Baba of Shirdi has to be viewed in this context. 

Those who can practice orthodoxy, may go ahead with it by all means. But they should not decry other sources of wisdom or weal, unless they can fill the gap.