Do We Think Alike?

                              POEMS  AND POETS

            32. Do We Think Alike?

Science is spreading a uniform view of the Universe. International commerce is promoting a uniform lifestyle. Education is advancing set ideas and pet theories as the mainstream standard. In most countries of the third world, westernisation is taken to be modernisation. But, still, do we all think alike, or react in the same manner, when we watch a movie or read a poem or a novel? However much we may conform in matters of external conduct, there is an inner core which is individual.

Organised religion teaches its doctrines formally to its adherents. There is the Sunday school for Christians, for instance. The Bible is common, but each denomination teaches it in its own way. When it comes to practice, Roman Catholicism is the most ritual-based, with its Mass, 7 Sacraments, Confession, its Saints and Novenas, etc! In some respects it runs parallel to our Hinduism, especially with its chantings in Latin! But Hinduism is not formally taught, and it is not organised, with a central authority or a hierarchy.Hindu children only absorb what the elders practice. It is only later that they may learn things formally.This is also mainly due to external pressure.Hindus now face intense propaganda by other religions directly; indirectly, the English language media in India merely echoes a predominantly Western view on everything. So thoughtful Hindus have to understand where they stand. G.K.Chesterton said in his 'HERETICS':

"Truths turn into dogmas the instant they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion. And the scepticism of our time does not really destroy the beliefs, rather it creates them; gives them their limits and their plain and defiant shape."

                                                                            From: Heretics (1905)
                                                                             Concluding Remarks.

So, the Hindu who merely followed his dharma is now required to proclaim his faith- matam!

One of the things hotly debated is rebirth,called by the West,reincarnation.Along with 'Karma' it is a basic tenet of Hindu theory and practice. It has been held that this concept is not there in the Bible, and is therefore un-Christian. However, recent scholarship has tried to establish that the ancient Church authorities ( Origen, for eg) believed it, and it was only at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 AD that this doctrine was declared a heresy.

Historically, we find many leading personalities from different walks of life expressing  belief in rebirth. We may count among them: Benjamin Franklin, Jack London, Leo Tolstoy, Napoleon, Emerson, Thoreau,

Schweitzer, Nietzsche, Carl Jung, Socrates, Pythagoras, Voltaire. Even Jesus Christ is recorded in the Gnostic Gospels as having expressed this. We may read some remarks made by some remarkable people.

Mark Twain:

 "I have been born more times than anybody except Krishna."

Henry Ford:

" I adopted the theory of reincarnation when I was 26. Genius is experience. Some seem to think that it is a gift or talent, but it is the fruit of long experience in many lives."

Goethe:

"As long as you are not aware of the continued history of Die & Be again, you are merely a vague guest on a dark earth."

Jalaluddin Rumi

" I died as a mineral and became a plant, I died as a plant and rose to animal, I died as animal and was man. Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?"

Arthur Schopenhauer:

"Were  an Asiatic to ask me for a definition of Europe, I should be forced to answer him: It is that part of the world which is haunted by the incredible delusion that man was created out of nothing, and that his present birth is his first entrance into life."

There are lot of surveys and research studies . It is said that about 20% of the people of the West now believe in reincarnation. But the result of some studies can be hilarious, as when people claim that they had been famous personalities of the past! Edgar Cayce, an authentic psychic of the last century gave past-life readings for many people, some of them going back to the times of Christ, and ancient Egypt and Rome. One well known case of recent times was that of the famous Hollywood star Glenn Ford. Under hypnotic regression, he recalled five past births. One of them was as a cavalryman under Louis XIV of France. Though Ford knew only a few French words, when he recalled his French birth,he spoke fluent French. When the recording was made available to UCLA, they found that not only was the French fluent, but it was actually a dialect spoken in the 17th Century!

Poets have their own approach. Here is one.

Paul Hamilton Hayne

PRE-EXISTENCE

While sauntering through the crowded street,

Some half-remembered face I meet,

Albeit upon no mortal shore

That face, me thinks, has smiled before.

Lost in a gay and festal throng,

I tremble at some tender song,-

Set to an air whose golden bars

I must have heard in other stars.

In sacred aisles I pause to share

The blessings of a priestly prayer,-

When the whole scene which greets mine eyes

In some strange mode I recognize

As one whose every mystic part

I feel prefigured in my heart.

At sunset, as I calmly stand,

A stranger on an alien strand,

Familiar as my childhood's home

Seems the long stretch of wave and foam

One sails toward me o'er the bay,

And what he comes to do and say

I can foretell. A prescient lore

Springs from some life outlived of yore.

O swift,instinctive,startling gleams

Of deep soul-knowledge! not as dreams

Foe aye ye vaguely dawn and die,

But oft with lightning certainty

Pierce through the dark, oblivious brain,

To make old thoughts and memories plain,

Thoughts which perchance must travel back

Across the wild,bewildering track

Of countless aeons; memories far,

High-reaching yon pallid star,

Unknown, scarce seen, whose flickering grace

Faints on the outmost  rings of space!

Such moments have to be experienced!

Hindus have an image of Prosperity (Lakshmi or Sri) and its opposite as two sisters, prosperity being the younger one.It is said that the elder one is steadfast while the younger is fickle! In the olden days money used to be in coins and circular in shape. So it was said that she would not stick to a place, but was ever ready to roll away! But today, money is mostly paper. We may hold it tight in lockers or accounts, but the Finance Minister will quietly knock away say a 10% annually by way of inflation! Physical assets are illiquid, and financial assets face depreciation! One really wonders how the Rich Dads of the world manage to remain so!

Imagine my surprise when I came upon an English poem, containing this very thought!

John Hay

GOOD AND BAD LUCK

Good Luck is the gayest of all girls;

     Long in one place she will not stay:

Back from your brow she strokes the curls,

     Kisses you quick and flies away.

But Madame Bad Luck soberly comes

     And stays- no fancy has she for flitting;

Snatches of true love-songs she hums,

     And sits by your bed, and brings her knitting.

Should we get depressed by such thoughts? Once a Fakir came to emperor Akbar's place. The orders were that a Fakir should be allowed to go to the emperor any time. So  he went to the royal chambers. Akbar was found praying, so the Fakir waited. After a while, he got up and tried to leave. Akbar stopped him, asking why he was leaving and saying no one coming to the Emperor should return empty handed. The Fakir told him: Your Majesty! I came here to ask for something. But I found you begging for everything from God! Why should I beg from another beggar? So I am going!"

So, we know what is the Source! Theology is an endless maze. Lakshmi may be fickle with human beings,but she never leaves Narayana, her Lord. So if we catch the Lord, she will also automatically come! We really mostly do not know what to ask for! It is said: success is having what you want,  happiness is wanting what you have! So, Sages and Incarnations advise us: Seek ye first the kingdom of God, all these things will be given to you! Yogakshemam vahamyaham- I supply what you need, and protect what you have- says Krishna in the Gita. So we now know the secret of attracting Prosperity!

       

        

Poets and Philosophy-1

                                      POEMS AND POETS

              20.Poets And Philosophy-1

What do we mean by Philosophy?

The general understanding is that it is an abstract, academic inquiry into aspects of life that do not concern us daily, or engage us vitally. It is usually identified with certain names, and schools like Socrates, Aristotle, Spinoza, Sartre,etc. What these gentlemen say, especially the modern ones, is generally incomprehensible, except to the initiated, though a few quotations may do the rounds.Though a good-natured soul like Will Durant wrote a nice book to help the general reader comprehend the situation better. We can at least appreciate Will Durant's presentation, though the ideas presented there do not appear to have helped the world much or made it a better place. Poor man, the greatest of them was made to drink poison and court death. That way, philosophy does not seem to help even the philosophers, unlike economics which in spite of all the misery it is causing, is a rich source of employment and earning for the economist!

But this was not the sense in which the word was understood in the past.
Look at this scene from As You Like It: Act 3, Scene 2

TOUCHSTONE

                    Hast any philosophy in thee,shepherd?

CORIN 
                     No more but that I know the more one sickens, the worse at ease he is,
                     and that he that wants money, means and content is without three good friends,;
                     that the property of rain is to wet, and fire, to burn;
                     that good pasture makes fat sheep;
                     and that a great cause of the night is lack of the sun;
                     that he that hath learned no wit by nature nor art may complain of good breeding or comes of a very dull kindred.

TOUCHSTONE
                    Such a one is a natural philosopher.

What does philosophy mean here, as understood  in general? Any systematic body  of codified wisdom, couched in academic jargon, floating around in somebody's name,  which some people without better work to do pore over in some closeted institutions?

As Corin the shepherd expressed it, it is common wisdom of the people, result of experience, undecreed by any king or court, and also untouched by it.

More seriously considered, but in the traditional manner, it is, to quote Dr.S.Radhakrishnan: 

"an attitude of mind which can best be described as 'idealistic'. Have you that spiritual dimension in your being,that mood of reflective inquiry and self-contemplation, that anxiety of mind to know the things spiritual in which is the true dwelling-place of man? Or do you belong to the race of  unreflective people who are satisfied with business or politics or sport, whose life is dull prose without any ideal meaning? Philosophy is understanding, contemplation,insight, and a philosopher can find no rest until he gains a view or vison of the world of things and persons which will enable him to interpret the manifold experiences as expressive,in some sort, of a purpose."   ( An Idealist View of Life )

In short, it is what one feels the world is about, and serves as a guide to one's conduct in the world. It is one's own idea about the meaning and purpose of life. It takes one beyond the sensible world. Because most people do not reflect, they find it easy to reflect some one else's view. 

Considered in this light, we can say most people do have a philosophy of some sort, of their own, or borrowed. Every attitude becomes a philosophy; and also its opposite.

About Corin's short discourse, one can say after all it is a shepherd's view, and but reflects his 'level' of thinking. Granted that this shepherd is not the Shepherd of Galilee or Judea, ( or the cowherd boy of Brindavan) he did not have the fortune of his views getting 'academised'. But , can our academics render it simpler? Surely, they can complicate, and mystify!

This is the secret of 'philosophy' in general. It is a view of world and life which pervades a society, shared by the common  man and can be seen in or sensed from their actions. It is in this sense that all traditional societies had  cogent philosophies of their own, while the modern one displays utter confusion about or total incomprehension of even the most basic problem of life.

Not only a society, even sections within it have philosophies of their own. Take art. What was Greek philosophy of art? Embody Beauty. What was the Indian? Use the three dimensions to portray That which defies all human dimensions! So one sees such 'queer' sculptures of gods and goddesses in India.

It is not that modern professions lack any philosophy of their own, or their individual practitioners. Take the movies, for instance. They are divided in India usually into commercial and art films. All movie makers  want to make money- so that is the motive, not philosophy. The philosophy comes in when they select the themes, and decide on the treatment.Some of the so called 'art' movies are as crooked in theme and treatment as the rank commercial ones, at times even more perverted. Only, they may not employ well-known or 'star' actors. A director like Hrishikesh Mukherjee was deeply sensitive and so humane in all his movies, throughout the 40-odd years of his career. But he did not call himself an art movie director.

I have often wondered how the directors could portray the vilest scenes of violence and rape in such lurid detail, unless they believed in it, or at  least enjoyed it? To that extent it reflects their philosophy!

When Hitchcock filmed 'I Confess', he conveyed a philosophy- the sacredness of the institution of the Confession. On the other hand, 'Rear Window' scandalised a deeply held popular philosophy: you could not be a peeping Tom in a cultured society. That simply is not acceptable behaviour. Naturally, many people resented it and even questioned how James Stewart could ever agree to do that role and how Hitchcock could select that theme. This is but an expression of the shared, but unstated philosophy  people believed in!

This is where art and artist are connected by a common philosophy. Jimmy Stewart had that image of a righteous man. After all, the roles chosen by an actor must in some way reflect his own personality or philosophy, unless he was a mere money making machine? It was said that the character of Moses that Charlton Heston played in The Ten Commandments so affected him that he could not accept just any role after that! Gregory Peck is reputed for always choosing roles that accorded with his personality and convictions, so that when 'To Kill A Mocking Bird' came along, we felt we were actually seeing Atticus Finch alive! On the other hand, Clint Eastwood , the hero of Spaghetti Westerns, tried to make amends  by producing, acting and directing 'Unforgiven'! It sure has violence,but does not glorify it . Who can say great artists do not have a philosophy of their own! I am out of touch with current movies, to offer more recent examples.

Ultimately, philosophy is all about the question of whether life or the world has a meaning or purpose. How we answer this question determines the quality and dimensions of our life. The purpose of all education and religion is only to equip us with some philosophy in this sense- not a structured doctrine of fancy jargon. It endows man with a sense of destiny  that is not limited to the physical dimensions of the visible world. Come to think of it- this is what distinguishes humankind from animals. We all share the same visible world. But man can exceed it. In that, he excels himself. No animal could do that.  Without philosophy, man is just an animal- even with his rationality. In fact all his rationality has only made him a more ferocious animal, in the absence of a true philosophy. Else, what is the meaning of the two World Wars?

And it is here that both modern education and religions have failed. They have taught us nice theories, but equipped us with no philosophy. And modern 'philosophies' have turned into pure speculation or abstraction. Like the mud horse,it does not help us cross the river of life.

Of these, the failure of religion is most tragic. Take Christianity, for instance, the largest organised religion in the world. Given that original sin is its starting point, what can be its philosophy-possibly its only philosophy? That man cannot come out of this condition on his own- he needs divine grace. That grace has come in the form of Christ: the lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world. Where then is the need for all that other theology? Or even a Church?

For an outsider, the very idea of Christ is thrilling- no matter the figure of Christ, or his historical truth. That some one has offered to lift humanity by offering himself as sacrifice- there can be no more divine act! 
And the only price one has to pay is to believe he is the Truth and the Way, and follow him! A way is meant to be followed! Many are willing to believe, but few,to follow! But Christ is not Unique! After all, this is what Krishna also says in the Gita, in conclusion: 'Giving up all this preoccupation with your laws, surrender to Me! I will save you!' The Buddha said he did not desire Nirvana till the last life was saved!

It is said  that what distinguishes man  from animals is that man can talk, can laugh, can reason. But what makes him human is this divine spark- can he feel others' pain? Animal lives for itself; man alone can live for others. If he too lives for himself, he is just a two legged animal. To relieve some one else's pain is human enough- but to seek to do it for the entire humanity is nothing short of divine. Unfortunately, this simple philosophy is veiled by layers of theological dogma.

It is the chief merit of the great poets that they do not let humanity forget the simple philosophy of life. As one of our celluloid poets sang:

bhala ka je bhala hoga
bhura ka je bhura hoga
wahi likh likh ke kya hoga?

if you do good, good will happen to you
if you do bad, bad will come back to you
What is the point in writing this down repeatedly?

                    

Can Wisdom be Taught?

                                 POEMS AND POETS

                 18.Can Wisdom be Taught ?

What is Wisdom?

What do we mean by Wisdom?
We may say it is Saving Knowledge. Everything else is serving knowledge.

Our normal  experience  involves us with the external world. If we think a bit, we may infer that something must have brought forth the world. Even if we say it is an accident, the question arises:what caused the accident? If we say Big Bang, the immediate question is: what was before? There must have been a First Cause. For convenience, it is called God. So we have three fundamental categories: Man, World, and God! It is man who sees or perceives both world and God.

Science deals with the world of Nature. This knowledge serves us- for the time being, for it is subject to endless revision. It is based chiefly on hypothesis, inference, and mathematical models. Einstein gave 40 pages of mathematical formulae as proof of his theory. Most people value science for what it does-technology, practical application. This serves us, but only time will tell, how well.

Theology deals with God. But like science, it is hypothesis, speculation and inference.  Religion deals with ethics and morality.This also serves us- for the time being. It is particularly helpful in making societies run. Police force is not adequate in any country to maintain order, or ensure peace. Society functions at all, because most ordinary people are good and have some sense of morality or at least decency.. It is religion which has made them so. As Alain De Botton has shown recently, religion has contributed to make social life light and colourful with its art, music, architecture,etc., even if it failed to serve its primary purpose. So theology is also serving knowledge.

Philosophy as it is conceived in the West, especially in its modern forms, is not even serving knowledge, if knowledge at all.. Brilliant but idle minds may speculate on everything, including the nature of mind, but arrive at nothing. But that is philosophy! How can that be a guide to life-here or hereafter?

So,  what happens to Man? It is Wisdom which deals with man. The most direct view of wisdom is: since man perceives  world and conceives God, unless we know what is man, his nature, we cannot know either world or God. Wisdom deals with this essential aspect of man. Wisdom is knowing his real nature or true self.

Stated differently, we are dealing here with subjective and objective knowledge. Wisdom is Subjective knowledge. Which means realisation of/experiencing what Is, not holding an opinion or idea about it. This is obtained by identity, not study. You can study a tiger in the lab or zoo, but unless you become one, you do not Know it. Knowing it is being it.

Upanishad put it very simply:Knowing which everything becomes known. This is Wisdom.

Story of Narada

In the Upanishad, there is a beautiful story involving Narada. He is our own Mulla Nasruddin!  He is very learned, he is also a great advocate of the path of devotion to God. He is invoked  in various places to illustrate important issues, portraying him in different roles.

Once he approaches Sanatkumara, the renowned sage, and beseeches instruction. Sanatkumara first asks him what he already knew. Narada starts off listing, beginning with the Vedas. It is interesting to note all that he lists:Vedas, history, legend and mythology, grammar of Vedas,mathematics, astrology, the knowledge of rites concerning ancestors,logic,geology,underground resources, omens and natural phenomena,moral science,archery, astronomy,snake charming, fine arts! What an impressive list for those times! But, even as he goes on listing, he realises that these are but names!   He is facing sorrow in the world, but they have not removed it. So they are all meaningless! So he admits openly: " Sir, I know these are only names. I have heard from Realised Ones that it is only knowledge of the Self that will remove sorrow. Tarati sokham atmavit iti! I have come to you,Sir. Please take me across!" 

Kumara agrees with him that all these are but names and tells him  this is Apara Vidya- non essential or lower.Did he know the essential or higher-Para Vidya? Of course one has to begin with names, but there are higher stages. So the sage starts his teaching.

 This is the difference between serving and Saving knowledge. The story goes on to show how Narada gained this essential knowledge.

(When they speak of 'sorrow' it is not in the sense of pain or suffering due to particular circumstances of an individual life.It concerns the general condition of man. They feel that somehow life is not perfect, and they have not found the key. This is the pervading general sense of sorrow.)

Only this Para vidya qualifies as wisdom!

All ancient civilisations deal with this as the most fundamental and important aspect of life on earth. Everything else in life was ordered on the basis of this knowledge and approach.This is exactly what modernity has wilfully repudiated. it does not recognise any truth other than the visible world.

Ancient view of man was that he was part of Nature and had obligations to fulfil. No ancient civilisation talks of any Right! The Old Testament injunction: Be fruitful and multiply; subdue the earth,it is reported, is wrongly interpreted.Subdue the earth-is taken to mean Lord over it. In fact, it means husband it ie take care-which is an obligation, and not a right! Modern civilisation does not recognise any obligations at all!

An essential aspect of Wisdom is for man to become aware of his potential, along with his obligations.This covers the twin aspects: life as an individual, and life in society- the inner and outer dimensions of life. Man cannot live alone, but he cannot be submerged  in or swallowed by, society completely. Wisdom ensured this.

In course of time, a division has taken place. Religion dealt with obligations; spirituality dealt with Wisdom. In India we can see this in Rta vis a vis Satya, or Dharma v.Direct pursuit of truth. Unless the first stage is fulfilled, one does not qualify for the second; but unless the second or higher aim is kept in view, the first one cannot be discharged properly!. Both are thus interlinked.

How do we teach this wisdom?

It is recognised that one can learn only from one who knows, as only a source of light can light another. But here knowledge is not of mere names! The usual instruction of the Upanishad is to 'approach' a teacher who knows and learn from him. The Gita sums up the situation in an oft quoted verse:4.34

Tad viddhi pranipatena pariprsnena sevaya:
Upadekshyanti te jnanam jananina: tatvadarshina:

Know that,by prostrating, by questions,and by service; the wise, who have realised the Truth will instruct you in that knowledge.

We must carefully note the qualifications laid down.

• The teacher is not any learned academic; he is one who has "realised" the Truth; literally has "seen" it. Nothing is mentioned about his learning!This is extensively dealt with in our literature.
•  Nature of the Truth is not elaborated- it is simply called Tat - That.
• The  Truth is called Tatva- "that which is";  'Truth' is not the correct equivalent. 
• prostrating refers to the humility essential
• questions refer to the attitude of attentive listening and spirit of inquiry
• service refers to the readiness of the student to face personal discomfort

But the rub comes now. What does 'instruct '(Upadekshyanti) mean?. Even traditional commentators have tripped here.

It is a basic postulate of Hindu thought that this Wisdom, Tatva, Satya cannot be expressed in words: it is beyond mind, beyond expression in speech= achintyam, anirvachaneeeyam. It is said Neti,Neti- whatever can be named or described is not That! It is so in all Wisdom traditions. As Tao masters say, if it can be expressed in words, it is not the Tao! So how then it can be passed on?

This is where the  presence and personal influence of a True Realised Master are essential. In any tradition, those who "Know It" are few, while those who "know about it" are many. Those who know do not talk, they live and show.

In the Upanishads there are many stories of student seekers and great teachers but not a single instance of direct teaching. There is no technique like Yoga, no formula like mantra, and no ritual like Tantra. The so called Mahavakyas are not a formula; by repeating them any number of times in the name of meditation or some other,nothing will be achieved. J.Krishnamurti once said that if repetition of a mantra can achieve it, then even the name Coca Cola can be taken as a mantra and repeated!

This is a situation which all wisdom traditions face. There has to be a double coincidence : a True Knower, and a Genuine Seeker. Both are rare in the modern world!

Upanishadic  Method and Socratic Dialogue!

Those who study our Upanishads and also read the Socratic dialogues will be struck by some brilliant similarities., at least parallels even if they do not meet.

The Upanishadic method is where a student approaches a teacher and seeks instruction into Truth. Instead of giving a direct answer, the teacher launches on a discussion of various things, and gives some examples, even stories, which do not provide a direct answer to the question but would lead the questioner to arrive at the conclusion,by inference or intuition.The teacher does not force his views on others, even his own son, but by deft questioning and remarks leads them on the path to self discovery. In every instance, the final outcome is a self discovery by the student. The teacher merely says: this is what I have seen, what  I know, what I have heard from elders. This is the method I have followed. If you do , you too will realise. Finally the student declares: Yes, I see. Thank You, Sir.

The Socratic method may look different but the outcome is the same. There is a group, questions are raised on morality or philosophy or other issues. 

Discussion starts, Socrates often is the facilitator. He does not take sides but by close argument, the participants realise the limitations of the stated opinions. What the dialogues achieve is to promote some general reflection, and  independent, critical thinking.Socrates does not force his conclusions on any one.

• no consensus is aimed at
• no opinion is forced on others as the only valid one
• critical thinking is promoted.

"The unexamined life is not worth living", said Socrates. The dialogues tend to promote critical examination of life's questions, not dogma.

The main difference I have found between the Upanishadic and Socratic methods is that in the former, the questions all relate to the Ultimate Truth.In the latter, the questions are more general, lofty, but not the supreme.

The pity is that those traditional scholars who know our Upanishads have not studied Socrates thoroughly, and vice versa. Each group is also beset with its own prejudices , preferences,and agendas. But I find lot of common ground. Robin Waterfield's introductions really thrilled me.

To my mind, there is no doubt that Socrates is like our own Rishi. He knows the Truth, but does not talk about it. His statement " I do not know" is his way of warding off needless discussion and speculation. No one who does not know the Truth first hand - a knowledge which is of One- can embrace death with peace and calm. And only such a one will refuse a chance to escape- he knows the immortality of the soul, and its indestructibility by any weapon or means-- the first teaching Krishna offers in the Gita.

So the conclusion about Wisdom is that it can be imbibed, acquired but not  through direct or formal teaching or indoctrination. It becomes reality only when experienced personally and lived. In this sense,Wisdom imposes an obligation to practise it. Knowledge is Virtue, that is!