SWAMI VIVEKANANDA: AN ASSESSMENT

NATIVE  CHARM

SWAMI  VIVEKANANDA: AN ASSESSMENT


Reading Swami Vivekananda or reading about him?

Most of us, at least of the older generation must be familiar with the name of Swami Vivekananda. The younger generation does not know about him  much. But it is doubtful how many-old or young- have read his works- mostly talks subsequently published, and letters. Our knowledge is from hearsay, or secondary sources. This is characteristic of Indians. Whether it is old scriptures like Ramayana or Mahabharata or Bhagavatam , Artha Sastra of Kautilya, Manu Smriti, or works of new authorities like Mahatma Gandhi, Sri Aurobindo , Ramana Maharshi, few of us have taken the time and the trouble to read the originals. And unless we read them in the original, we cannot understand Indian thought.

This presents peculiar problems. Those who read and write about them- even translate them- do so from their own angles, for their own motives. Secondly, very often modern masters like Vivekananda or Sri Aurobindo or Ramana Maharshi cannot be translated adequately or competently in any language. The works of Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo are originally in English, and they should present no problems to English educated persons. But studying them demands exclusive attention and they cannot be read in a hurry. Without knowledge of the original sources, we are unable to check how true are the popular writers or speakers when they talk about these authorities.

Swami Vivekananda at Chicago, 1893. 
He made Indians proud!

Many-sided genius:
Vivekananda in West and East

Focusing on Vivekananda here, we find that his works are edited and published in 9 volumes, of about 400 pages each.Reading leisurely about 20 pages a day, we can complete all the volumes in about 6 months.

It is helpful to note a few characteristics before and while reading.

1. His speeches are not arranged chronologically. So while reading we can take them up chronologically. It will enable us to understand how his thoughts  evolved. 

2. His talks in the West and his talks in India differ substantially in their scope and even style. The subjects are also different

3. While in the West, he defended Hinduism. He interpreted it in modern, rational language, and presented it in modern English.It is only through him that even  English-educated and non-Sanskrit knowing Indians could learn about our religion. He presented Hinduism as mainly Vedanta, with the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. He presented Vedanta as the core of a possible universal religion. Every Indian who has ever written on Hinduism since then has invariably drawn on Vivekananda, whether acknowledged or not. Modern India cannot be understood without a study of Vivekananda.

While in India, he talked of how Indians had failed to practise their lofty ideals, how we had degenerated in all spheres and how bringing Vedantic principles into practise was essential for our regeneration. 

4. While in the West, he did not talk about Sri Ramakrishna, except on a single occasion. In India, he hailed Ramakrishna as the 'Avatara Varishta'. He made Ramakrishna into a cult figure, creating an organisation for the purpose.

5. He departed from Sri Ramakrishna in a very important matter. Sri Ramakrishna never concerned himself with any social issues- like caste, women's problems, etc. His focus was only 'spiritual' awakening, and his emphasis was on Bhakti as shown by Narada as the most suitable way for Kali Yuga. He was addressing individuals all the time, or small groups of devotees, who gathered round him,in his immediate presence. He never gave public talks. His instructions were always addressed to individuals in his immediate presence.

All this changed with Vivekananda. He mostly addressed large gatherings. He was talking mostly of social issues. But he could not come to a firm conclusion, or offer satisfactory solution. Each one who writes about Vivekananda cites selected passages to support their own view of what Vivekananda is supposed to have said or meant! Apart from his idea of 'practical Vedanta', man-making education etc- which are all general ideas, Vivekananda did not offer any concrete spiritual programme for the general public, but he created a monastic order for the initiated disciples. He only emphasised social relief work through the RK Mission. In these, he adopted partly the methods of the Buddhist Sangha  and the Roman Catholic Church.  He  expected the initiated monks of the order to engage in both spiritual propaganda and social work. In the process, the RK Order has become another cult, with Sri Ramakrishna, Sarada Devi and Vivekananda himself as the holy trinity! The cult status is emphasised through the fact that once even a house holder devotee takes some 'mantra' initiation from any monk of the Order, they have to accept Sri Ramakrishna as  God!

So, when we take up Vivekananda for serious study, we have to keep track and note of what he said, when , and on which subject. On this basis, we should form our own conclusions about the final position of Vivekananda. 

Some definite ideas

6. Even so, there are some issues on which he gave some definite ideas or guidelines.

• The world was embarking on the age of the shudra or proletariat ( after the age of commerce or Vaishya) and the new movement will start in Russia 
• It is doubtful if Jesus Christ was a historical person. Christianity in origin is based on Buddhist principles and practice.
• Prophet Mohammad was not a complete or perfect prophet. He did not understand many things correctly.
• Hindus failed to practise their lofty ideals and allowed a section of their people to lapse into poverty and ignorance.
• He admired Buddha personally, but held Buddhism to be responsible for the downfall of India.
• Indians lacked practical skills, physical strength and mental vigour. They lacked leadership qualities, they could not work as a team, and their jealousy led to pulling each other down.
• He refused to discuss issues relating to women and said that they should be free to study and settle questions relating to them. ( But in America, he strongly spoke in defence of the Hindu ideal of women. He held up the example of Sita. He categorically said that the Hindu woman commanded respect as 'mother', while in the West, the woman was celebrated as the wife!)
• For the next hundred years, Indians should forget all other gods and devote themselves to the upliftment of the poor.
• Spirituality is the life-secret of India. If India gave up spirituality and took to social reform, it would fall in three generations.
• 
  
• 

Swami Vivekananda as a wandering monk, prior to his departure to America.

Vivekananda-then and now

Immediately following his time, the first generation of our leaders struggling for Independence  were enormously influenced by the words of Vivekananda. There are many places in his speeches when he implied that we can have freedom in religion only if we had freedom in politics ie only if India was politically free.  But he did not say so openly, for the British govt was very repressive in Bengal at that time. His Order was under surveillance and they were careful to avoid giving the impression that they had any political ideas or ambitions. But many youngsters who became monks later did have revolutionary nationalist feelings! And Sister Nivedita, his direct disciple, was a staunch nationalist. The RK Order felt uncomfortable with her fiery nationalism, and she had to issue a public statement, on the urging of Swami Brahmananda, distancing herself from the RK movement!

Over the years, the RK Order has had its internal politics, as it happens in any organisation growing in money power, and bureaucracy. Vivekananda's emphasis on social relief was not accepted by many senior disciples in his own time as the authentic interpretation of the teaching of Sri Ramakrishna. They succumbed to the personal magnetism or emotional pressure of Vivekananda. In regard to  the teachings of Ramakrishna too, the Order took their own line, projecting him as the apostle of inter-religious harmony, treating all religions as true or equally valid. Any careful reader of the words of Sri Ramakrishna know that this is not wholly true,, or his main message. They completely suppress the critical remarks of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda about Christianity and Mohammad, coloured by their global ambitions. 

 I write all this because, if we want to understand what Vivekananda said, and we must, we should directly read what he said, and not rely on interpreters  from the RK Order, or outside. In the light of such a close study of his works, we should assess the overall impact of Vivekananda. 

Having been a student of Vivekananda for the last 50 years, and reflected deeply on his works, I think that his legacy is mixed. His work had immediate relevance, and it had instant impact. It greatly boosted the self-confidence of Indians and restored their national pride.It inspired our national leaders. It made educated, thoughtful people in America and England approach Indian religion and philosophy with new eyes.

Swami Vivekananda on the platform of the Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1893.

But over the years, his impact has waned..

Reaction against Vivekananda

1. In America, the anti-Hindu forces have regrouped and become stronger. The tribe of bogus gurus, yogis and others supposedly representing Hinduism and seeking to make a fast buck, has not helped. Today, the anti-Hindu sentiment in the US is very pronounced, especially in the Universities. Vivekananda addressed Harvard! Today, it is unthinkable. Even so called Indian liberals, actually leftist loonies, like Amartya Sen who earn their money there,and who are eager to please their pay-masters, would oppose such a move! They cannot stand our Subramanian Swamy; how can they tolerate Swami Vivekananda in Harvard!

2. The thoughtless approach of the representatives of the RK Order in projecting Vedanta as the universal religion, and indiscriminate talk of 'all religions being equally true or valid', has had the negative effect of making people there ask: if as you say all religions are true, what is so special about Vedanta and why do we need it? Many westerners speak of non-Indian Vedanta! There is now a Vedanta associated with even Freemasonry! The ISKCON has done a better and uncompromising job here!

Another view of Swami Vivekananda at Chicago, 1893, with the East India group of delegates.

3. Within India, Vivekananda has been reduced to a minor cult figure, one among so many. When he returned from America in 1897, the whole country from the Himalayas to Rameshwaram. and beyond in Ceylon exploded   in a spontaneous, tumultuous celebration of his achievement. Today, he is celebrated only by the RK Math!  The Hindus today identify him with a Math, not with the general Hindu stream. Even his centenary year in 1963 evoked some genuine national feeling and pride. But I have seen this evaporate since then.The general secular mood of the country will regard him rather as a Hindu fundamentalist! Even   those public figures who dare to take his name at all openly suppress his religious ideas and project him as a sort of secular, reformist leader.This is how distant our Hindu spiritual ideal has become from public consciousness, and how much it is denied space in public discourse in its own homeland!

4. The educational ideal given by him is not followed even by the RK Order which runs even a University now! It is only following  the conventional mill, govt imposed/approved syllabus, oriented for a job or career, not life or man-making enterprise. And to run those institutions they went to the Supreme Court and claimed that Ramakrishna was not a Hindu! Oh, shit!

5. Vivekananda's words are inspiring, and we can read his works for a theoretical understanding of our philosophy, and for a certain elevation of our mood. But philosophy is not all of religion, and he did not make a direct  or original contribution to the regeneration of Indian spiritual life in a practical way, such as Sri Ramakrishna did!  Even today, if we need spiritual guidance, it is to Sri  Ramakrishna we have to turn. And his words on our philosophy too are more practical and more powerful than those of Vivekananda.

Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna

Sri Vivekananda was a great man, one of India's greatest ever children. But his greatness served a specific need at a particular time. His mission was to the West. Sri Ramakrishna, sitting in his Dakshineswar temple complex, near the capital of colonial India, without having formal schooling or knowledge of English, established the truth and greatness of our religion. He held all the educated people spell-bound with his country language and home-bred wisdom. In fact, his audience consisted of the English-educated middle class 'babus' of Bengal, whom Sri Ramakrishna sometimes called 'Englishmen'! This had a two pronged effect: his strong advocacy of Hinduism restored the faith of the educated in our ancient religion and philosophy. It reduced the attraction and the danger from Christian missionaries. At the same time, it took the steam out of Indian reform movements like the Brahmo Samaj, which were based on   blatant imitation of  Christian ways. In the process, Keshub Chandra Sen, the Brahmo leader, himself became an admirer and follower of Sri Ramakrishna, accepting many of Sri Ramakrishna's principles like devotion to Mother, and worship of images, which were against Brahmo principles. Sen in fact was instrumental in spreading the word about Sri Ramakrisna among the educated youngsters of Bengal by his writings. Most of the direct disciples, including Vivekananda had been members of the Brahmo Samaj! (But Vivekananda had first heard about Sri Ramakrishna from an Englishman, his college professor!)

  Vivekananda, armed with a university degree, mastering both western knowledge and Eastern wisdom, went to America, the emerging virtual capital of the world, and declared to the educated people there that Hinduism was the oldest religion of mankind, and the wisest.He confronted the Christian  missionaries in their very den, and made thoughtful people realise how idiotic it was for the missionaries to dump their religion on an already religious people. This was no ordinary feat, considering that India was then a British colony and the colonial power is always and everywhere considered superior. Most Indians  today cannot even imagine the situation then. Every Indian, every Hindu today owes a great debt of deep gratitude to Vivekananda, but alas, most Indians are so ignorant in the matter, ungrateful wretches.

We know that during his first visit to America, it was Sri Ramakrishna acting and speaking through him. The mere presence of Vivekananda exuded  spiritual power and grace. He stood up at last to speak,  in the Chicago parliament, and just greeted "Sisters and brothers of America" and the whole audience exploded into  spontaneous, prolonged applause! This is an unparallelled event in world history. Later,in India and during his second visit abroad,  he acted on his own, and departed from his Master. He entered the dreary desert sand of social issues, and lost his way. He upheld towards the end the historical value and validity of Hindu orthodoxy. And when he sat to worship Sri Ramakrishna, he was orthodox to the core. He also admitted that  his public work had been motivated by ego.But this is not the image that most people have of Vivekananda!

The one volume of 'The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna' is worth more than all of the complete works of Vivekananda, a hundred times over. That is pure, unalloyed spiritual guidance. Vivekananda's works have their value, but they do not match the power of Sri Ramakrishna's simple  words!

I respect Vivekananda, but I worship Sri Ramakrishna!

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.