Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS)

Swami Vivekananda’s perspective

Two warring groups of Academics in India:

Today, in India, we have two groups of intellectuals or academics. One group believes that ancient India had all knowledge, and whatever is considered important today in the fields of science, technology, medicine, warfare, etc. were all known in ancient India. Western people have nothing new to offer to us. They have stolen all our knowledge. We don’t need to learn anything from the West. If we go back to our own ancient books, we will get the latest knowledge in all fields of human interest. Let us call this group as the Indian group of intellectuals. This group is actively advocating ‘IKS’ or Indian Knowledge Systems and calls for including ancient Indian studies in our curriculum.

There is another group of intellectuals or academics in India, who believe that most of ancient Indian knowledge was superstition, and that whatever is worthwhile in the world today has been given to us by the West. Ancient India was an aberration, best forgotten as a historical glitch. If it weren’t for the Mughals and the Europeans, we wouldn’t have known what culture and civilization means. We would have remained a superstitious, medieval uncouth group of people. Let us call this group as the Western group of intellectuals. This group generally mocks the present attempt of introducing ancient Indian studies in mainstream curriculum.

The former seems to be right-wingers, and the latter seem to be leftists, mainly.

Which of them is correct?

I will not enter into this controversy. I will instead explain Swamiji’s views on this issue. You can then decide for yourself.

Two distinct categories of Knowledge:

Ancient India concluded that all knowledge, that a human being can have, can be classified into two, very distinct, categories. They were called ‘Avidya’ and ‘Vidya’ during the extremely ancient times of the Isha Upanishad. Later on, the same two categories were called ‘Apara Vidya’ and ‘Para Vidya’, during the Mundaka Upanishad period. We will notice that the names for these two categories of knowledge kept on changing, but the validity of two distinct categories of knowledge remained constant.

Avidya or Apara Vidya consisted of all knowledge concerning this external world. This external world is common to all of us.

Vidya or Para Vidya consisted of all knowledge concerning the internal world. This internal world is unique to each one of us.

Our Rishis studied the nature of both these categories of knowledge. They found out that their fundamental characteristics were markedly different. How were they different?

Para Vidya, the knowledge of the internal nature of man, was a perfected science. This knowledge had an end in view. That goal of Para Vidya had been discovered long ago. It was the unique experience of the Atman, called Samadhi. Nothing further can be added to this field of human knowledge, except the fact that each one of us has to discover it for ourselves, by following a rigorous procedure called Yoga. All details of the path and the goal have been recorded in our most ancient scriptures called the Upanishads, as also in the later scriptures called Tantras, Agamas, Puranas, and Prakaranas.

Apara Vidya, the knowledge of the external world, was an ever-progressing science. This knowledge has a nature of continuously growing, accumulating, facing sever disruptions and paradigm shifts, but always growing and expanding.

Para Vidya fundamentally transforms a man. Apara Vidya cannot transform a man. It can lead to a better understanding of life and ease the problems of life in this world, but it can never transform a man like Para Vidya does.

For E.g.: You may know all the established theories of philosophy of the East and the West, but, your nature, behavior, attitude, actions, and most importantly, your self-image or identity will not change as a result of that knowledge. On the other hand, you may not know any philosophy, but, you have experienced Samadhi and in Samadhi you have experienced the Atman. Your entire personality changes, irreversibly.

Does that mean that Apara Vidya can be neglected? No. It may not transform a man radically like Para Vidya does, but it can facilitate the man’s journey to the goal of Para Vidya. It helps man to resolve existential problems such as justice, hunger, misery, etc. If we neglect Apara Vidya totally, we won’t be able to cultivate Para Vidya too.

Ancient India made serious contributions to both these categories of knowledge. Owing to their sincerity and Shraddha, they perfected the Para Vidya, the science of the internal nature of man. Sometime in the ancient past, our national leaders and thinkers seem to have decided that we must focus on Para Vidya and not so much on Apara Vidya. Hence, we have had an unbroken line of high achievers in Para Vidya, people who have seen God. In every age, in every century, we have had people who saw God, who experienced the truth of religion. No matter how deeply you study and know about the external world, it does not make a man truly happy and satisfied. There seems to be something inherently self-contradictory about the contents of Apara Vidya. It may, at best, be a means to leading us to Para Vidya, but it was not worth the while to make its pursuit the goal of human life. Our ancient thinkers may not have explicitly said anything like this, but the gist of their thought processes led to this conclusion. Hence, in India, pursuit of knowledge primarily meant Para Vidya, and Apara Vidya slowly took a subservient position.

Apara Vidya lost out to Para Vidya in India:

Para Vidya begins with the desire to see God. It ends when a man experiences Samadhi. Apara Vidya begins with a curiosity about human life, about this world, about making life on earth easier. It aims to reduce misery in life, by understanding how this world functions. Does Apara Vidya have an end in view? Apparently, it does have an end in view. It claims to seek answers to all questions that assail man – what is this world? Why are we here? How does this world function? Why is there evil in the world? How can we remove misery from life and society? What is justice? What is beauty? Apara Vidya aims to seek answers to all these existential questions. Well and good. But the problem lies in its scope of the search. It confines itself to a study of the perceived world, to the exclusion of the study of one’s own inner world. Apara Vidya claims to answer all questions regarding the inner world by means of studying the external world. The ambitions of Apara Vidya are truly grand and majestic. But ancient Indians saw through this illusion of Apara Vidya’s scope long, long ago. The Rishi in the Mundaka Upanishad declares, “Parikshya lokaan karmchitaan brahmano nirvedamaayaat; naasti akritah hritena.” Having deeply studied this external world long and hard, the discerning man decides that he has to beat a retreat from his senses and his mind. For, he understands that what he seeks can’t be found by studying this external world. His answers lie in studying his own inner nature. As a consequence, Indian society developed to value people who pursue Para Vidya to those who pursue Apara Vidya.

Nevertheless, intermittent contributions to Apara Vidya too happened throughout our history. But we must recognize one important historical development. In the post Buddhist age, Hindus stopped taking Apara Vidya seriously. There is a strong possibility that civilizationally, the Hindus valued Para Vidya more than Apara Vidya, and those Hindus who were interested in the various Apara Vidyas, were sidelined, and it was these Hindus who shifted to Buddhism.[1] I have mentioned above that India seemed to have decided that pursuit of Para Vidya was heads and shoulders above that of Apara Vidya. Yet, how many people in a society can be fit for practicing Para Vidya? There was indisputably a very subtle form of discrimination in Indian society towards those who indulged in the activities of Apara Vidya. Let us note that all these people were the ones who handled the manual labor of the society. In other words, they constituted the masses of Indian society. The masses were indisputably discriminated against by those who pursued Para Vidya. As a result, when Buddha gave a call for converts to his new way of life and new religion, these masses were the ones who shifted camp! Notice that some centuries later, when Buddhism itself had evolved its elite society, it was again these laboring masses who were sidelined, and it was again these masses who shifted to Islam in India. That is why, even today, most laboring classes are Muslims. Islam promised them social status, and egalitarian society. History seems to show us a trend. When the masses are socially disgruntled, they tend to change camps towards a new dispensation that promises them social status.

Buddhists wholeheartedly adopted this field, left India, settled in Middle East, China, and South-East Asia and made serious contributions to Apara Vidya. They handed over their knowledge to the Muslims, who developed Apara Vidya in an unprecedented manner. They took all fields of Apara Vidya to great heights in their academic centers in Baghdad, Isfahan, Cordoba, Sicily, Al-Andalus, Antioch, etc. Passing through the hands of brilliant Muslim scholars such as Ibn-Sina, Ibn-Rushd, Ibn-Al-Haytham, Al-Khwarizmi, Al-Sirhindi, etc., the enhanced knowledge was passed over to the Europeans from the 12^th to the 16^th century. This transfer of knowledge is what is today called as the Renaissance or the Age of Reason. Then the Europeans developed this knowledge beautifully and created what is today known as Science and Technology.

We must keep in mind the fact that the seeds of almost every important field of Apara Vidya started in ancient India. But we abandoned that field long ago, handing over the baton to the Buddhists, then to the Muslims, and lastly to the Europeans. Thus, if we start studying the Apara Vidya of ancient India, we will have to reinvent the wheel. We will need to develop those ideas methodically, and even if do all that homework, what we will end up with, is the present form of Western Science & Technology.

Re-inventing the wheel:

Let me explain this through an example: In the 7^th century AD, a Rishi called Brahmagupta wrote a treatise called Brahmasphuta Siddhanta. It contained a concept called ‘Gurutvakarshana’. Muslim scholars Al-Fazari and Yakub-Ibn-Tariq translated this text into Arabic. Later on, it was translated to many European languages in Spain in the 12^th century. Both Newton and Descartes had copies of this book. Brahmagupta’s concept of Gurutvakarshana was developed by Newton into the Law of Gravitation. Now, this doesn’t mean that if we learn Sanskrit and study the Brahmasphuta Siddhanta, we will understand gravitation. At each stage of transmission, many vital features were added to this concept. The concept grew. Precise mathematical formulae got developed by Newton and others, which finally became the universal law of gravitation. The story doesn’t end there. In the early 1900s, Newton’s conception of gravitation was challenged by Einstein, who gave a totally new interpretation for the same concept. Now, in IKS, if we study Brahmagupta’s book, who is going to connect those ideas of Gurutvakarshana to the present ideas of gravitation, which govern satellites, rockets and GPS?

Notice that anything worthy of our attention in India is couched in Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is a difficult language to learn. It is very systematic and is not spoken in common circles. If something is expressed in common spoken languages, it is not important in India. At least this was the trend until a few hundred years. All higher knowledge was thus kept out of reach of common man in India. Buddha tried to bring everything in the reach of common man by mandating that all discourse – Para and Apara – must be in Pali, Prakrit or Paishachi languages. The attempt met with failure in India and Buddhism was removed from India. At least modern Apara Vidya is in English, which is a common spoken language of the common people. All higher knowledge, at least in Apara Vidya, is now accessible to the common man. When this is the case, after centuries of struggle, the ancient resistance is once again raising its head by saying that we must learn science and technology from our ancient texts in Sanskrit and not in English!

In this context, it is important to understand one more thing: technology obsolescence.

Technology obsolescence: A fundamental characteristic of Apara Vidya

Technology obsolescence occurs when older systems, devices, processes, technical knowhow and expertise lose value because newer, more efficient, or better-supported alternatives emerge. As I mentioned earlier, the very nature of Apara Vidya is to grow, expand, innovate, and disrupt. Technology obsolescence impacts individuals, businesses, and entire generations.

Let me explain it with a very recent development – the Lunar Missions of NASA. From 1967 to 1973, NASA ran a total of 55 lunar missions of which 37 were successful, 2 were partially successful and 14 were failures. These included flybys, impactors, orbiters, landers, rovers, and manned crew missions. A total of 12 persons went in these missions and walked on the moon! NASA used the Saturn-V rockets which were the most powerful rockets ever built. But production of Saturn-V rockets stopped after Apollo-17. Manufacturing lines were dismantled. Many components relied on suppliers that no longer exist. Guidance computers were primitive compared to today’s systems. Even though blueprints exist, rebuilding Saturn-V with outdated parts is impossible; modern substitutes would essentially create a new rocket. Today, NASA is working with Spacex to resume the lunar missions under the new name ‘Artemis missions’, building afresh, using updated technology. Obsolescence is not ‘loss’ of knowledge. Apollo designs exist, but outdated supply chains and materials make them unusable. Artemis reflects decades of progress in propulsion, computing, and safety.

As regards any field of Apara Vidya, this is the trend. This is how ideas grow and expand. Unless the organics evolution of ideas is catalogued and studied, picking up some arbitrary piece of information from the past will not be of any practical use.

I do not doubt that ancient India did not know about airplanes, or nuclear weapons, or rockets and missiles, or plastic surgery. But we must take into consideration the technical obsolescence that fills the gap between then and now. The technology is lost, processes are lost, expertise is lost. So, there is no immediate benefit in trying to study all those things again, except for its historical value. Knowing the incredible achievements of our ancestors can awaken tremendous confidence within us. But that awakened self-confidence will need to be bolstered by real-time achievement by us, here and now. Living in the past is not enough. Just take a look at modern Egyptians or Greeks or Persians. What were they once upon a time, and what are they now? Don’t they know their own history? Of what avail is that knowledge of their glorious past when at present they need economic bail-outs every year?

Another example I generally give to students to drive home this vital point is: Let us say your mother prepared amazing Biryani today. Your whole house is filled with its rich aroma. When your father comes home from work, you excitedly tell him that mother has prepared Biryani. Your father then vehemently objects saying, “What? You think your mother prepared the Biryani? I prepared the Biryani and not your mother. Do you see the rice in the Biryani? I brought that basmati Rice from the market. The oil, ghee, chicken, spices, onion, bay-leaf, everything I brought. How can you say your mother prepared it?” There is no doubt that if your father hadn’t brought those ingredients, your mother couldn’t have cooked the amazing dish. But whose contribution is more important here? Your father bringing the necessary ingredients? Or your mother painstakingly adding them all together in the right proportion to give those raw items and bringing them to a delectable state? Could either one of them have given you the Biryani, purely confined to their own actions?

This is the dilemma that the present-day emphasis on IKS gives us.

Both Para & Apara Vidya needed: Swami Vivekananda

Hence, the correct perspective for IKS, according to Swami Vivekananda can be summed up in his own words: What we need today in India is Western Science, coupled with Vedanta, with Brahmacharya as the guiding motto and also Shraddha and faith in one’s own self.

Note how Swamiji says that we need both Western Science and Vedanta. These are the modern terms for Apara Vidya and Para Vidya respectively.

What we need to urgently understand is this:

Knowledge about one’s own inner truth was developed in ancient India and here alone. No other nation developed it like we did in India. That is our forte. That knowledge, known as Para Vidya or Vedanta, is full and perfected. It doesn’t grow or evolve. Each one of us however needs to cultivate that knowledge and obtain a unique experience that lies at the goal of cultivating Para Vidya, an experience called variously as Samadhi, God-vision, seeing the Atman, Self-realization, Brahmanubhava, Nirvana, Fanaa, etc. To be sure, every religion begins with this Para Vidya. Hindu religion began with pursuit of Samadhi. Buddhism began with pursuit of Nirvana. Christianity began with the pursuit of ‘seeing God’. Islam began with pursuit of the blessed state of Fanaa. Somewhere down the line, most religions relinquish this pursuit and espouse pursuit of Apara Vidya, ignoring Para Vidya. In fact, in Christianity and Islam, if anyone talks about ‘seeing God’ or experiencing Fanaa, today he will be killed! Hinduism alone cherishes the goal of Para Vidya even to this day. Here, in India, if a man says he wants to see the Atman, in whatever language he expresses himself, he will be encouraged and supported.

Knowledge about this world is an ever-growing corpus, the seeds of which were indeed developed in ancient India, but, as it passed through the hands of the Buddhists, Muslims, and Europeans, developed into something so vastly different from the ancient Indian seeds that its present form is today unrecognizable from what we gave the world. As regards knowledge of this world, we had better learn it in the present-day form, as offered to us by the West. That would benefit us greatly.

Rationality:

Whether we study the external world, or the internal world, the method of studying either of them is founded on rationality. The principles of rationality were discovered in ancient India by a sage called Maharishi Kapila. Swamiji says that every philosopher, every scientist, and every spiritual saint has to offer his gratitude to one person – Maharishi Kapila. Man has access to two phases of reality – the external world, and the internal world. If we apply the principles of rational thought to the external world, we get Apara Vidya or Western Science. If we apply the principles of rational thought to the internal world, we get Para Vidya or Vedanta.

Sanatana Dharma & Yuga Dharma:

India developed the concepts of Sanatana Dharma and Yuga Dharma. Notice that we began with the concepts of Vidya and Avidya. These two later on became Para Vidya and Apara Vidya. Sometime later they became Jnana Kanda and Karma Kanda. Then they became Shruti and Smriti. The same two concepts respectively became Sanatana Dharma and Yuga Dharma later on.

Sanatana Dharma is a relatively modern term synonymous with Para Vidya or Vedanta. It deals only with the inner world of man, and the truth to be found there. It has nothing to do with this world and its workings. It is unchanging. It is universal, irrespective of considerations of geography, time, race, caste, gender, etc. The conclusions of Sanatana Dharma or Para Vidya or Vedanta are universally valid and applicable.[2]

Yuga Dharma is the relatively modern term for Apara Vidya or knowledge of this external world. Yuga Dharma always grows, changes with time, changes with the contributions of successive generations, changing the very society in which we live.

In ancient India, Yuga Dharma was always considered to be subservient to Sanatana Dharma. In other words, our daily life in this world, arising out of our knowledge of this external world, ought to contribute to our progress in the knowledge of our inner world, ultimately leading us to the unique experience of Samadhi. What we generally call ‘work’ in our day-to-day life is actually arising out of Apara Vidya and is a function of Apara Vidya. While Para Vidya has some very specific practices which help a man to unravel his true inner nature and achieve Samadhi, our daily work itself has a tremendous transformative effect on us, which when strategically executed, can lead us quickly to become fit for achieving Samadhi. It is in this sense that I say India has always Apara Vidya or Yuga Dharma subservient to Para Vidya or Sanatana Dharma.

The problem with Apara Vidya or Yuga Dharma is that it tends to change. If you closely study any activity in this world, you will understand the truth of what we are saying here. Suppose you start a business. When you start it, it is small. With time, it either dies out or scales up. If it scales up, in a few decades, it becomes multi-national in its scope. Along with scale, serious cross-disciplinary integration happens, and slowly, man finds that his activities have lost an organic connection with his soul. Periodically, the changes in Yuga Dharma become so huge and massive that it disrupts this organic connection between Apara Vidya and Para Vidya. That disruption is called ‘Dharma-glaani’. Then, a unique being takes birth in India, who is called ‘Avatara’, and incarnation of God, whose life and message re-establishes that organic connection between the two categories of knowledge. That is called ‘Dharma-samsthaapana’. You will recall Sri Krishna’s declaration in the Gita, “Yada yada hi dharmasya glaanirbhavati bharata, abhyutthaanam adharmasya tadaatmanam srijaamyaham; paritraanaya sadhoonaam, vinaashaya cha dushkritaam, Dharma samsthaapanarthaaya sambhavaami yuge yuge.”

Before I end this deliberation of what Swamiji means by Indian Knowledge Systems, we shall take one last look at the question: Which of these two knowledges should we cultivate?

This dilemma has been resolved in the Isha Upanishad, considered as the oldest Upanishad. The Upanishad Rishis says: “Andham tamah pravishanti ye avidyaam upasate; tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u vidyam ratah!” Those who pursue only Avidya (Apara Vidya, Yuga Dharma, Smriti, Karma Kanda, Western Science) enter darkness in their life. But those who pursue only Vidya (Para Vidya, Sanatana Dharma, Shruti, Jnana Kanda, Vedanta) enter into much greater darkness in their life! Both have different ends in view. But man needs both for a fulfilled life. If pursued simultaneously, then the Rishi declares: “Avidyaya mrityum tirtva, vidyaya amritam ashnute” i.e. You will defeat death by means of Western Science, and realize that you are immortal by means of Vedanta. Jesus Christ said, “Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give unto the Lord what belongs to the Lord.”

How does one pursue both simultaneously?

Today, the doyens of Western Science pursue the study of Power (or Shakti) to the exclusion of Consciousness. Similarly, traditional Vedanta (as expounded by Acharya Shankara and his school) pursues Pure Consciousness to the exclusion of Shakti (or Power). Sri Ramakrishna repeatedly said “Brahman and Shakti are one and the same. He that is Brahman is also Shakti. They are two sides of a coin, as it were.” This vision that Sri Ramakrishna gave us can bring about the much-needed course correction.[3] We shall pursue both, for they are indeed two aspects of the same Reality. When we look at Shakti as the same as Brahman, sacredness comes into every aspect of our life. We have our daily activities that sustain our lives and our society. Each of those activities becomes sacred. It is this loss of sacredness that is the bane of our present world. Once we bring in sacredness into our every aspect of our life, Apara Vidya will lead us to Para Vidya seamlessly. To labor is to pray. Hands that work are as holy as lips that pray.

*****************

---

[1] This is my own inference, and I don’t have historical evidence for this conclusion.

[2] Note that the present day use of the term ‘Sanatani’ to refer to Hindus, by the Hindutva group, does not refer to this traditional meaning.

[3] For more details on how Sri Ramakrishna brought about this course-correction, please refer: Sri Ramakrishna and the Vedic Ideal by Swami Bhajanananda:

Married Devotees of Sri Ramakrishna

Ratna-di’s Study Circle

Last class, we dealt with the monastic disciples of Sri Ramakrishna. Today, we shall deal with the married devotees of Sri Ramakrishna.

Introduction:

First of all, the number of married devotees is way larger than the monastic disciples. We can count at the most 16 monastic disciples of Sri Ramakrishna. But the householder devotees’ count runs up to at least a hundred! Of course, we can make a distinction of some of them belonging to a closer circle of devotees than others. Yet, all put together, we can count at least 100 devotees who came in touch with Sri Ramakrishna and were blessed by him. By closer circle, we mean that they received Mantra Diksha from Thakur. By closer circle, we also mean that some of them spent days together, even spending nights in Dakshineswar or Cossipore, with Thakur.

But these things cannot be so easily explained or understood. There are some devotees who met Thakur but once or at the most twice. And there is no record of they having received any Mantra from Thakur. Yet, their life changed so drastically that they literally became transformed into saints! In what category shall we put them?

Moreover, if the person we are studying, became a monk later on, he is called a monastic disciple. And if the person was already married, or got married later on, he becomes a ‘devotee’, and not a disciple. The Bengali words used are ‘Sannyasi Shishya’ and ‘Grihi Bhakta’ respectively. Now, in what category do we place Rakhal Chandra Ghosh, Tarak Nath Ghoshal, and Yogindra Chattopadhaya? They were married. They all came in touch with Thakur and later on took monastic vows. Also, what about Vaikunta Nath Sanyal? He too took monastic vows later on (from Swami Saradananda, following the Tantric rites of Sannyasa). Yet, he will be considered as a married devotee and not a monastic disciple.

If we study the life of Sri Ramakrishna written by Swami Saradananda, between the lines, there seems to be a tacit instruction from Thakur himself about which of his followers should be considered as monastic disciples and which should be considered as married devotees. A disciple works for the Avatara and for his Mission on earth. A devotee enjoys the divine play of the Avatara. That is the fundamental difference. But then, what about Mahendranath Gupta? Surely, his work for furthering Thakur’s mission is at par with what the monastic disciples did!

Which of Thakur’s married devotees was the greatest? I have asked this question to many devotees. Most say that it is Nag Mahashay. Fine. Agreed. But then, in what sense was Nag Mahashay a married person? Of course, he married twice! But there was no conjugal life at all. He had no kids, no job, nothing that can be called ‘married life’. None of the responsibilities that go with marriage can be seen in Mag Mahashay’s life. The only reason he should be considered as ‘married devotee’ is that he got married, and that too twice!

If we study this topic superficially, we will miss a very important point. It is to highlight that vital issue that I agreed to speak on this topic today.

Tyaga, Mukti & Seva:

Sister Nivedita writes in her great book ‘Master as I saw him’ that Swamiji once told her the following:

‘Hitherto the great fault of our Indian religion has lain in its knowing only two words renunciation and Mukti. Only Mukti here! Nothing for the householder! But these are the very people whom I want to help. For, are not all souls of the same quality? Is not the goal of all the same? And so, strength must come to the nation through education.’ [1]

Having written this, she goes on to write: ‘I thought at the time, and I think increasingly, as I consider it, that this one talk of my Master had been well worth the whole voyage, to have heard.’ What great importance she gave to these words! Let us try to unravel the meaning of these incredible words of Swami Vivekananda.

He says that the great fault of the Indian Religion has been that it knows and preaches only two terms – Tyaga and Mukti. As a result, it caters only to the monks. There is very little that the Indian Religion offers to the married person. Then he goes on to say that it is the married person whom he actually wants to help! Recall what his Master had told him; “People are in distress; please do something to help them out of their misery.” This was the mandate given to him by Sri Ramakrishna.

What does Swamiji mean by saying that the great fault in the Indian Religion lies in it knowing only two words – Tyaga and Mukti? Why couldn’t Swamiji use the term Hindu Religion? Why the term Indian Religion?

Married Rishis of the Upanishads:

The ancient religion of the Hindus – the Sanatana Dharma – is based on the Upanishads. That religion is an amazing religion. It is life-affirming. This life, this world, its activities, everything was meaningful to the ancient Indians. In fact, in the extant 10 major Upanishads, which are also the oldest Upanishads, we do not find any monk at all. The Rishis of the Upanishads are all married persons. In fact, Yajnavalkya of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is twice married! And that too, not like Nag Mahashay, who married a second time after his first wife passed away. No. Yajnavalkya took a second wife even while his first wife was very much alive and living in his house! His first wife Katyayani was a homely lady, as is depicted in the Upanishad and his second wife Maitreyi was an acclaimed philosopher.

In the Chandogya Upanishad, we come across a sage called Raikva of the cart. This sage was approached by the King of that region. Raikva was acclaimed as a Brahmajnani. The king asked some questions and Raikva answers them. Then the king asks what gift would be appropriate for Raikva. Out of the blue, Raikva, a cart-driver, says, “O King, give your daughter in marriage to me.” A God-realised soul wishes to get married!

Ancient Hindu religion was basically a religion for the married person. Something happened in India as time passed on. We will see that later on.

But, does this mean that during the Vedic and Upanishadic ages, there were no monks? Monks existed in India from time immemorial. In the Atharva Veda, we have a set of mantras called the Yati Sukta. A mantra in that Sukta reads:

Yatir brahmā bhavati; (The monk realizes Brahman)

Yatir devānām priyo bhavati; (The monk becomes dear to the gods)

Yatir hi lokasya gopāḥ. (The monk is the security of the whole world)

In the Taittiriya Upanishad, we have the Acharya Upadesha, where the teacher exhorts the students to: “Acharyaya priyam dhanam ahritya, prajatantum maa vyavachhetseehi.” Do not neglect to produce progeny! Which means, ‘Get married’. There is no such exhortation anywhere in the Upanishads for taking up monastic life, without first of all leading a married life, and producing wealth.

Buddhistic reformation of India & our Religion:

Right up to the time of Sri Krishna, Indian society was fundamentally a married persons’ society. Monks were fringe elements. Spirituality and religion were protected and nurtured by the married persons. Now, these married persons, by default, had to belong to one of the four castes. Many sub-castes were also created, mainly due to expansion of economic activities, but also due to inter-caste marriages. It is but natural that just as secrets of economic activities were protected within families, so also was the spiritual knowledge entrusted within those families. This meant that access to spiritual knowledge was subject to family rules and caste or sub-caste norms! This was the situation when Buddha arrived on the scene. He searched for people who had access to spiritual knowledge, but everywhere he was blocked by caste regulations. The only help he found was from the monks who were beyond caste regulations, the Ativarna and the Atyashrami monks.

Therefore, it was that Buddha, after he re-discovered the Truth of Vedanta, entrusted it with the monks alone. What is the status of the married person in Buddhism? The Truth can be reached only by the monk, according to Buddha. If a married man wishes to know the Truth, he has to forthwith renounce his position in society and move into a monastery. Thus, the trend was started by Buddha. A married man’s only duty was to serve the monks and thereby earn merit (Punya). Buddha changed Indian society fundamentally. The monk became primary to Indian society, although he had renounced society. The married man became secondary to Indian society, although he was the pillar of economic activity, wealth generation, and social harmony. Buddhism clearly specifies that a married man cannot become spiritually free. Freedom is reserved only to monks. A married man, by being ethical, and by relentlessly serving monks, can at the most accrue some punya, and be born again as a monk in later lives, and only then become free! This conception was the exact opposite of the religion of the Vedas and the Upanishads, as we have seen above. That is the primary reason Buddhism was totally removed from Indian society.

That is also the reason why Swamiji made that statement to Nivedita: ‘Hitherto the great fault of our Indian religion has lain in its knowing only two words renunciation and Mukti. Only Mukti here! Nothing for the householder! But these are the very people whom I want to help. For, are not all souls of the same quality? Is not the goal of all the same? And so, strength must come to the nation through education.’ Swamiji says that for over 2000 years, Indian society has had only Tyaga & Mukti. A householder, by definition cannot renounce. So, Hinduism, after it was reformed by Buddha, had nothing to give to the householder! Swamiji thereafter says that instead of Tyaga & Mukti, now it will be Tyaga & Seva. Tyaga and Seva are our national ideals. And that is the education we need to give.

The dynamics between Tyaga & Mukti as compared to Tyaga & Seva is an important subject that we need to understand urgently. I will not deal with that subject here, since I have elaborated this in ‘Study of the Isha Upanishad’.[2]

Marriage, Tyaga & Mukti: Karma Yoga

This raises an important question: Can a married person become free? If yes, what is the method?

Swami Saradananda has written a wonderful book, Sri Ramakrishna Lilaprasanga or Sri Ramakrishna & His Divine Play. It is an authentic biography of Sri Ramakrishna. It has a very interesting passage in this regard. While delineating the divine revelations of Sri Ramakrishna after his six long months of Advaita Siddhi, Swami Saradananda writes[3] about one such revelation showing that ordinary people will progress through Karma-Yoga. This is indeed a momentous revelation and Swami Saradananda explains it as follows: “The Master indicated the limits of Karma when he said, ‘The action of a sattvic person drops off automatically. He cannot work even if he tries to; the Lord does not allow him to work. It is just as when a young wife advances in pregnancy. She is given less and less work to do; and when the child is born, she gives up household work altogether and is busied exclusively with the infant. But an ordinary person must try to do his duties with detachment, depending on the Lord, like the maidservant who does everything for her master, knowing in her heart that her home is elsewhere. This is known as Karma-Yoga. As far as possible one should take the name of the Lord and meditate on Him while discharging one’s everyday duties in an unattached way.’”

So, Mother Kali revealed to Sri Ramakrishna that in this modern age, common man will progress through Karma-Yoga. Now, let us compare this with what Sister Nivedita has to say on the same topic. While explaining the Sadhana that Swami Vivekananda delineated for all of us, she writes:

Let us be true to our work. Our task is our swadharma. ‘Better for each man is his swadharma, however faulty his performance, than the task of another, though he could do it easily.’ That thing which faces me and frightens me, that very thing that seems the one most difficult, if it is my swadharma, is the path. It is a grand gospel – this doctrine of fearlessness, of courage, of self-conquest. Arise, thou Great Divinity that liest hidden within us! In Thy name, all things are possible to us! Making victory and defeat the same, plunge we into battle! But how are we to fight? Most of us, by work. The world’s work is the great Sadhana, wherein we accumulate character, by which, when the time comes, we can rise even into the Nirvikalpa Samadhi itself. Character is self-restraint. Self-restraint is self-direction. Self-direction is concentration.  Concentration when perfect is Samadhi. From perfect work to perfect Mukti. This is the swing of the soul. Let us then be perfect in work! [4]

So, the everyday work that we do, as a function of being a member of this society, is our Sadhana.[5] Note that it is not necessarily the work of our liking; it is not even a particular kind of work. It is the work that falls to our lot, consequent to our station and position in life. It is the work we ‘ought’ to do at any particular point of time in our life. That work is technically called Karma. It needs to be done in a particular way, so that it gets converted into Yoga.

Does Karma Yoga lead to Mukti?

Let me not try to answer this question. Instead, I will let Swamiji talk: “All religions and all methods of work and worship lead us to one and the same goal. I have already tried to point out that goal. It is freedom as I understand it…”[6] “Karma-Yoga, therefore, is a system of ethics and religion intended to attain freedom through unselfishness, and by good works…”[7] “Karma-Yoga teaches us that the ordinary idea of duty is on the lower plane; nevertheless, all of us have to do our duty…. The only true duty is to be unattached and to work as free beings, to give up all work unto God. All our duties are His. Blessed are we that we are ordered out here. We serve our time; whether we do it ill or well, who knows? If we do it well, we do not get the fruits. If we do it ill, neither do we get the care. Be at rest, be free, and work…”[8] “Karma-Yoga makes a science of work; you learn by it how best to utilise all the workings of this world. Work is inevitable, it must be so; but we should work to the highest purpose…”[9] “So, Karma-Yoga says, first destroy the tendency to project this tentacle of selfishness, and when you have the power of checking it, hold it in and do not allow the mind to get into the ways of selfishness. Then you may go out into the world and work as much as you can. Mix everywhere, go where you please; you will never be contaminated with evil. There is the lotus leaf in the water; the water cannot touch and adhere to it; so will you be in the world. This is called ‘Vairagya’, dispassion or non-attachment. I believe I have told you that without non attachment there cannot be any kind of Yoga. Non-attachment is the basis of all the Yogas. The man who gives up living in houses, wearing fine clothes, and eating good food, and goes into the desert, may be a most attached person. His only possession, his own body, may become everything to him; and as he lives, he will be simply struggling for the sake of his body. Non-attachment does not mean anything that we may do in relation to our external body, it is all in the mind. The binding link of ‘I and mine’ is in the mind. If we have not this link with the body and with the things of the senses, we are non-attached, wherever and whatever we may be. A man may be on a throne and perfectly non-attached; another man may be in rags and still very much attached. First, we have to attain this state of non-attachment and then to work incessantly. Karma-Yoga gives us the method that will help us in giving up all attachment, though it is indeed very hard.”[10]

The goal of life, be it for a monk or for a married person, or for an unmarried person, is ‘seeing God’ even while alive. It cannot be that a monk alone will ‘see God’ and a married person will only accrue merit or Punya. A married man also can ‘see God’. Marriage or monasticism is a social status. Social status and social position have no influence on ‘seeing God’. The path to ‘seeing God’ varies depending on the social position one holds. The path for a monk is greatly different from that of a married man. Just because the paths are different doesn’t necessarily make one inferior to the other. Humility and inferiority are different. A married man today feels inferior to a monk. In order to change this despicable situation in our Indian society, we have to educate our people on the efficacy of the spiritual path meant for the married person. Always harping on the monastic path for spiritual progress is detrimental to society.

Swamiji says: “Our first duty is not to hate ourselves, because to advance we must have faith in ourselves first and then in God. He who has no faith in himself can never have faith in God. Constant self-disapproval would breed more vice than any other weakness would. To the man who has begun to hate himself the gate to degeneration has already opened; and the same is true of a nation.”^[11]

What is unattached work?

Before we proceed, let us try to understand Sri Ramakrishna’s advice regarding Karma Yoga in some detail. He said, “…an ordinary person must try to do his duties with detachment, depending on the Lord, like the maidservant…” How does a maidservant work? With detachment, depending on the Lord, as he himself clarifies. What does this mean? Our ordinary understanding is – the maidservant will work in the rich man’s house, but her mind will be on her own home in the village. Does this attitude work at all? If our mind is not present fully in the work we do, can the work be effective? If we are not fully involved in the work we do, can we discharge our duties effectively? Won’t that be half-hearted work? Can such shoddy work be Yoga?

Swamiji says, “Work constantly; work, but be not attached; be not caught. Reserve unto yourself the power of detaching yourself from everything, however beloved, however much the soul might yearn for it, however great the pangs of misery you feel if you were going to leave it; still, reserve the power of leaving it whenever you want.”[12] “We put all our energies to concentrate and get attached to one thing; but the other part, though equally difficult, we seldom pay any attention to – the faculty of detaching ourselves at a moment’s notice from anything. Both attachment and detachment perfectly developed make a man great and happy.”[13] “As soon as you are attached to anything in the universe, detaching it from the universe as a whole, from the Atman, there comes a reaction. With everything that we love outside the Self, grief and misery will be the result. If we enjoy everything in the Self, and as the Self, no misery or reaction will come. This is perfect bliss.”[14]

The Maid-servant’s attitude:

Suppose I am the maidservant. I have joined work at this rich man’s house on, let us say 1^st of January. Right at the beginning of my assignment, I would have discussed with my employer when I will get released to go back to my home in my village. Let us say it has been decided that I will leave on a 15-days leave after 3 months, i.e., on 1^st April. From 1^st January onwards, when I begin my work here in this rich man’s house, I must forget my village and my home in my village, and my own small child in my home. This rich man’s house has now become my home, and his small kid has become my own kid. If someone throws things around this rich man’s house, I get angry and say ‘Hey, don’t throw things around in my house and dirty it.’ I do not, at that time, think, ‘O this is not my real home; my real home is there in the village; let them do what they want here.’ No. This rich man’s house is really my own home till 31^st March. Of course, late at night when I retire from the day’s business, and I lay on my bed in my small room in this rich man’s house, I might for some moments remember my own home and my own child. But early next morning, I will forget all those things and resume believing that this rich man’s house is indeed my own, and his child is indeed my own child. Thus, day after day passes, with me giving my entire attention to this house and its inmates, which are mine.

My attitude will start undergoing a sharp change around 25^th March. I start remembering that I have to leave for my real home in my village where my real people live. I have to shortly leave this rich man’s house, which I have started to feel as mine, which I have believed as mine in all reality. I have to leave these things behind. If I have given my heart to my duties here, I should not feel any regret on 31^st March. On 1^st April, I reach my real home and get to see my real child, after what seems like an eternity. I stay there for a 15-day period on vacation, only to start back to the rich man’s house. Then the whole cycle starts again.

By going through this cycle of deep attachment and deep detachment for a considerable amount of time (in most cases, this will take years), some changes start manifesting in me. The nightly memories of my real home start to seep into my place of duty. All associations start merging slowly, gradually. My mind starts getting calmer and calmer. Fundamental assumptions of life get questioned and rearranged. I start becoming aware of a greater power in the universe that is operating my life. I have somehow come to believe that my village, my home, and my child are somehow more real than this rich man’s house and his child here who is under my care. But, seen from the perspective of the greater power operating in my life, both assume equal status of reality. Neither one of these is more real than the other. I start becoming established in my real Self. Associations to my ‘self’ start getting more and more loose.

That is what Swamiji means by “If we enjoy everything in the Self, and as the Self, no misery or reaction will come. This is perfect bliss.”

This is also what Nivedita means when she writes: “But how are we to fight? Most of us, by work. The world’s work is the great Sadhana, wherein we accumulate character, by which, when the time comes, we can rise even into the Nirvikalpa Samadhi itself. Character is self-restraint. Self-restraint is self-direction. Self-direction is concentration.  Concentration when perfect is Samadhi. From perfect work to perfect Mukti. This is the swing of the soul. Let us then be perfect in work!”

Detachment is a very deep attitude. It is not superficial. It is not half-heartedness, or callousness, accompanied with a platitude such as ‘perhaps this is the will of the Lord’, etc. It will have the complete force of attachment plus something more. A larger vision underlies the attachment and gives rise to the detachment required for Karma Yoga.

Swamiji delineates beautifully how a person develops non-attachment or detachment. In his book ‘Karma Yoga’ there is a chapter called ‘Freedom’. I give the gist of his explanation here. As a person goes on performing his duties ‘like the maid-servant’, we saw how self-awareness develops. Along with that development, there comes a recognition of an immense power operating in this world, in our lives, in everything around us. This is the awareness of Prana or the Shakti of Brahman mentioned in the Upanishads. This Prana is called ‘Pratyaksha Brahman’, or the visible Brahman. Every act we perform seems like it originates from within us, from our own volition. But slowly we get to realise that every action originates from this ‘Pratyaksha Brahman’.

Marriage, Brahmacharya and Mukti:

One of the most confounding aspects of spiritual life of married people vis-à-vis that of monks is that of Brahmacharya or absolute continence. The question is – is spiritual progress or realisation possible if one is not continent? The answer is – No. Absolute chastity is a sine-qua-non for ‘seeing God’. If that is the case, where is the possibility of a married man to progress spiritually? How can a married man see God? Perhaps the Buddhists were right in saying that only a monk can have Mukti, while the highest that a married man can aspire for is Punya!

Spiritual progress is impossible without moral life. Spirituality means only one thing – seeing God. Nothing less than that can be called spiritual life. If one hasn’t seen God, one is not a spiritual person. Swami Brahmananda says that spiritual life begins with Samadhi. If a man hasn’t achieved samadhi, he is not spiritual. He may be an intellectual person, or a brute, but not spiritual. Moral life is however more nuanced. It is multi-layered. We can recognise gradations in morality.

Can a person who has had children experience samadhi? That is the crux of the issue. Let us listen to Sri Ramakrishna’s verdict on this matter.  He says: “After the birth of one or two children, husband and wife should live as brother and sister and talk only of God. Then both their minds will be drawn to God, and the wife will be a help to the husband on the path of spirituality. None can taste divine bliss without giving up his animal feeling. A devotee should pray to God to help him get rid of this feeling. It must be a sincere prayer. God is our Inner Controller; He will certainly listen to our prayer if it is sincere.”^[15] What is Sri Ramakrishna saying here? It is possible for a married man, who has begotten progeny, to see God. Of course, he will have to undergo a training. Sri Ramakrishna describes that training too. “A devotee should pray to God to help him get rid of this (animal) feeling (of procreating progeny). It. must be a sincere prayer. God is our Inner Controller; He will certainly listen to our prayer if it is sincere.” This continuous, sincere prayer for freedom from the animal feeling must be preceded by, or accompanied by, celibacy within married life. In fact, Sri Ramakrishna repeatedly advised celibacy in married life, but “after the birth of one or two children”.[16]

It is important to understand a couple of things in this matter.

1. Rules of conduct differ for the monk and for the married man.
2. Conditions for spiritual realisation remain the same, whether the man is a monk or a married person.

Sri Ramakrishna says elsewhere, elaborating on the different set of rules for monks and householders:

The Sannyasi’s discipline: “The sannyasi’s way of living is like observing the ekadasi fast without taking even a drop of water. If he clings to enjoyment, then he has reason to be afraid. ‘Woman and gold’ is enjoyment. If a monk enjoys it, he is swallowing his own spittle, as it were. There are different kinds of enjoyment: money, wealth, name, fame, and sense pleasures. It is not good for a sannyasi to sit in the company of a woman devotee, or even to talk to her. This injures him and others as well. Then others cannot learn from him; he cannot set an example to humanity. A sannyasi keeps his body in order to teach mankind…To sit with a woman or talk to her a long time has also been described as a kind of sexual intercourse. There are eight kinds. To listen to a woman and enjoy her conversation is one kind; to speak about a woman is another kind; to whisper to her privately is a third kind; to keep something belonging to a woman and enjoy it is a fourth kind; to touch her is a fifth. Therefore, a sannyasi should not salute his guru’s young wife, touching her feet. These are the rules for sannyasis.[17]

The Householders discipline: “But the case is quite different with householders. After the birth of one or two children, the husband and wife should live as brother and sister. The other seven kinds of sexual intercourse do not injure the much. [18]

Elsewhere he says the same thing in a little different way: “The renunciation of ‘woman and gold’ is meant for the sannyasi. He must not look even at the picture of a woman. Do you know what a woman is to a man? She is like spiced pickle. The very thought of pickle brings water to the tongue; it doesn’t have to be brought near the tongue.” Advice to householders: “But this renunciation is not meant for householders like you. It is meant only for sannyasis. You may live among women, as far as possible in a spirit of detachment. Now and then you must retire into solitude and think of God. Women must not be allowed there. You can lead an unattached life to a great extent if you have faith in God and love for Him. After the birth of one or two children a married couple should live as brother and sister. They should then constantly pray to God that their minds may not run after sense pleasures anymore and that they may not have any more children.“^[19]

Yet again, on another day, he says the same thing in a little more different way: “You should not renounce woman, completely. It is not harmful for a householder to live with his wife. But after the birth of one or two children, husband and wife should live as brother and sister.”^[20]

Later on, in this article, we will try to describe the common condition for all human beings for spiritual realisation. We will need that clarification because, a question that arises is – if the rules of moral conduct are different for monks and householders, and if moral conduct is the basis of spiritual progress, how can two different set of moral rules lead to the same spiritual realisation? We will clarify that issue later. But it is now clear that the rules of moral conduct for monks are entirely different from that of the married man.

In the ‘Sayings of the Desert Fathers’, an amazing incident is recorded:

Two father asked God to reveal to them how far they had advanced. A voice came which said, “In a certain village in Egypt, there is a man called Eucharistus and his wife who is called Mary. You have not yet reached their degree of virtue.” The two old men set out and went to the village. Having enquired, they found his house and his wife. They said to her, “Where is your husband?” She replied, “He is a shepherd and is feeding the sheep.” Then she made them come into the house. When evening came, Eucharistus returned with the sheep. Seeing the old men, he set the table and brought water to wash their feet. The old men said to him, “We shall eat nothing until you have told us about your way of life.” Eucharistus replied with humility, “I am a shepherd, and this is my wife.” The old men insisted but he did not want to say more. Then they said, “God has sent us to you.” At these words, Eucharistus was afraid and said, “Here are these sheep. We received them from our parents and if, by God’s help we make a little profit, we divide it into three parts: one for the poor, the second for hospitality and the third for our personal needs. Since I married my wife, we have not had physical contact with one another, for she is a virgin; we each live alone. At night we wear hair-shirts and our ordinary clothes by day. No one has known of this till now.” At these words, they were filled with admiration and went away giving glory to God.[21]

We have a whole host of Muslim saints – Jalaluddin Rumi, Mansur Al-Hallaj, Bayazid Bistami, Hasan al Basri, Junaid Baghdadi, Dhun Nun al Misri – all of whom were married. Each of them had ‘seen’ God while living. Fariddudin Al Attar has compiled the lives of 25 saints of Islam who shaped early Sufi tradition in Islam.[22] Almost all of them were married and had children. Yet, they all ‘saw’ God while living.

We are unable to find a single Rishi in our major Upanishads who was a monk. None of our Avataras was a monk. All our Avataras (including Buddha, who was responsible for this undue emphasis on monasticism for spiritual realization) was not only married, but also had a son. The only exceptions are Jesus Christ and Sri Ramakrishna.

One thing is clear from the discussion above. Getting married and/or having children is not a bar, not an obstacle, to seeing God in this very life. Becoming a monk or getting married seems to be a deep impulse from past lives embedded in the soul of the person. Individuals seem to have no say in that past history of their soul. So, depending on their own soul’s history, some will become monks and some will get married. But the goal of both types of people is the same – seeing God while alive. Our mind plays tricks on us. Our own mind creates obstacles for our own spiritual progress. It is very convenient for the married man to lay the blame on his ‘animal feeling’, or his social status of being married, and desist from progressing spiritually! The data and the facts given above expose this deception of the human mind.

Are we devaluing Sannyasa with this line of thought? Not at all. Monasticism embodies every single moral practice that is indispensable for God realization. Society will always have a small number of persons who are born with the ability to put all those moral rules into practice right from a young age. Their very nature will not allow otherwise. Such persons will stand out as beacons for the rest of society. The rest of society will perforce have to follow a different set of moral rules. However, sometime in their life, they too will have to follow, in toto, the moral rules embodied by the monks, if they want to ‘see God’ in this very life. If we impose the strict rules meant for monks on everyone in society, chaos descends. That is what happened to Indian society in the last 1500 years.

Buddha’s influence on India was immense. His personality was so pure, so powerful that his message could not be ignored. He changed the very though-currents of the world. Monasticism became indispensable for ‘seeing God’. Everyone started entering monasteries, taking monastic vows, which they obviously could not uphold. In the long run, both the institutions – monasticism and married life – deteriorated. That is the reason you find Ramayana becoming popular 600 years after Buddha’s life. Of course, Sri Rama ante-dated Buddha by at least 3000 years, if not more. But Valmiki wrote Ramayana around 1AD. Society in India needed an urgent correction. Sri Rama was the counter-balance to Buddha. If a person wanted to be a monk, he had Buddha as his ideal. What about a householder? Who could he look up to? So, Sri Rama was brought out from our own history as the ideal for the married man. Acharya Shankara brought in the major reformation in monasticism and cleaned the dross remaining from the Buddhistic fiasco. Now, Sri Ramakrishna brings in the correction for the married life, which too is a remnant of the Buddhistic fiasco. This is our belief. That is why Swamiji said, “Hitherto the great fault of our Indian religion has lain in its knowing only two words renunciation and Mukti. Only Mukti here! Nothing for the householder! But these are the very people whom I want to help. For, are not all souls of the same quality? Is not the goal of all the same? And so, strength must come to the nation through education.”

Impelled by one’s own nature, some will be inclined to monastic life, and some others will be inclined to get married. The goal of both is to ‘see God’ ‘ihaiva’ right here, while living, not post-mortem. Those who get married may beget children, thereby losing Brahmacharya. Yet, this loss of Brahmacharya can be repaired post-facto, if certain moral rules applicable to married life are followed. “Dharma aviruddho bhuteshu kaamosmi” said Sri Krishna. “I (i.e., the Lord of the Universe) am that ‘animal feeling’ that is not opposed to the moral rule for married life’. In the Ramayana, we have an incident where Ravana’s son Indrajit (also known as Meghanada) enters the battlefield. He can be killed only by a person who is a perfect Brahmacharin. Sri Rama chooses Lakshmana! He could have chosen Mahavir Hanuman. No. He chooses a married man, who had consummated his marriage with Urmila! And Lakshmana goes on to kill Meghanada, Ravana’s formidable son. This was the original conception of Brahmacharya in India – self-control and regulation. Not absolute continence. Of course, absolute continence is sine-qua-non for the monks. Monks cannot afford to have lapses in their continence! But, rules for married people are different from that for monks.

If a married person has had lapses in Brahmacharya, entirely within the bounds of the moral rules prescribed for his station in life, he/she will still be able to leave those lapses behind, and enter into a period of absolute continence later in life, if they desire to ‘see God’. This idea has to become clear to us in India today. That is the education urgently required, which Swamiji mentions.

Life-long Brahmacharya is enjoined on a monk, not from a spiritual point of view. It is more of a social requirement. A monk is an exemplar. Married people need examples before them. They are people who have had lapses in their brahmacharya. Yet they wish to see God. For seeing God, they will need to stop losing their brahmacharya. It is possible they will feel that it is impossible. Hence monks stand as examples, as specimens. Monks seem to be saying, ‘Look here; we are ordinary persons, just like you. It is possible to maintain absolute chastity, if you wish to, by invoking the grace of God.’ Recall Sri Ramakrishna’s words quoted above (which I am paraphrasing): “A monk must maintain absolute brahmacharya; otherwise, he cannot set an example to humanity. A sannyasi keeps his body in order to teach mankind.” What should he teach mankind? That the goal of life is to see God; that one should lead a moral life, wishing to eventually see God in this very life; that it is possible for any person to start maintaining absolute brahmacharya just as we do; and that without absolute brahmacharya, seeing God is impossible.

The process of achieving Mukti:

Hindu religion alone offers a rational explanation of spiritual life. Of course, Buddhism too does so, to a large extent, but that is because Buddhism accepts in toto the psychological aspects of Hinduism or the Yoga aspect of Hinduism. It must be mentioned here, that all other world religions too have a fringe aspect to them, where they also rationally explain the process of a human soul becoming free. But the popular versions of no other religion, except Hinduism entertains such a rational explanation, bogged down by dogmas. That is the reason they all present a post-mortem salvation, while Hinduism presents a liberating experience right here, right now, even while living. Ihaiva is the word used; right here, right now. That experience, which is within the scope of all human beings, is called Samadhi.

What is the process by which Samadhi occurs? A human being is a platform for the play of a very unique type of energy called ‘Prana’. Of course, prana actually means ‘energy’. Any energy operating in this universe is covered by this term prana. There are many types of energies. A unique form of energy is also called Prana, the unique form that operates within a living being, especially within a human being. This prana sustains life, as we know it. If we study human beings, the first thing that surprises us, even shocks us, is – how is this person being sustained, while every physical law known to us says that the person should have disintegrated long ago. Prana holds together the person.

This prana operates through two sets of nerve bundles, lying within the spinal column called Ida and Pingala. One carries the sensory inputs, while the other carries the motor commands. Evolution has brought us to this level of sophistication. Right from birth, we have these two nerve currents operating in all of us. As a result of this amazing arrangement, a person moves between a cycle of waking-dreaming-deep sleep-dreaming-waking, etc. Prana enables a person to continuously move between these three states of consciousness. Superficially, it appears that prana creates consciousness – the subjective experience – within human beings. For a long time, we all continue to believe so. It appears to be so.

Certain activities by human beings can alter this arrangement drastically. By means of a graded practice, when a person starts controlling the flow of prana through Ida and Pingala, while simultaneously entertaining abstract thought, and when the person sustains this process for a sufficient period of time, something incredible happens. A 3^rd set of nerve bundle starts becoming operative. This is called Sushumna. This set of nerves is generally not present in us when we are born. It has to be developed by conscious choice. The creation of these nerves requires continence. As long as a person is not celibate, prana can move only through Ida and Pingala, and the Sushumna is not developed. Once a person practices sexual continence for a sustained period of time, the nutrients in the blood which would have created new life, will start generating this 3^rd set of nerves. It is said that the nerves in Sushumna are extremely fine and subtle, some of them not even visible to the naked eye. But, the finer the nerves, the higher the quality of prana and greater the intensity of prana that they can carry. Where do these Sushumna nerves carry prana? We saw that Ida and Pingala carry prana from senses to the brain and from brain to the organs of action. What about Sushumna? There lies a succession of nerve ganglia, extremely subtle, along the Sushumna, each of which is called a ‘Chakra’ or ‘Padma’ or ‘Bhumi’, depending on which Hindu tradition you follow. When prana moves along the Sushumna and hits one of these ganglia, it results in what is recognized as a ‘spiritual experience’. Each such spiritual experience is called a Samadhi. After a sustained period of such prana movement, when the nerve-highways get strengthened, it will be possible for the person to divert the entire prana operating in his body through the Sushumna. When that happens, the destination of prana becomes a ganglion associated with the pineal gland in the brain. When all the prana reaches its destination, it results in a unique experience called Nirvikalpa Samadhi. In that experience, the person’s consciousness undergoes an irreversible transformation. The result is what is called ‘Mukti’. For then, the person realizes that his true nature of consciousness. Consciousness creates prana and not the other way round as we believe today.

Prana which passed through the Sushumna and reached the Sahasrara chakra at the top of the brain, again comes down the spinal column and starts coursing through the Ida and Pingala and the person becomes ‘normal’ again. Notice that when the entire prana moves through the Sushumna, there is hardly any prana left for moving through Ida and Pingala. This means that all physiological activities such as breathing, metabolism, etc. are all kept on hold. Even heart beat stops. Blood becomes stagnant. Continence allows for transforming this very body into surviving under such extreme conditions of duress. Our ordinary bodies cannot afford to have heart beat stopped and blood-flow arrested even for a few minutes. Our body will enter an irreversible state of disintegration which we call as death. Body can’t be revived after that. But continence sustained over long periods enables transformation of this very body into a Yogic body which can survive such death-like conditions and revive again! Every religion has produced examples of such persons. In fact, such persons alone are the proofs of religion.

It is sometimes possible for prana to enter into Sushumna, without the requisite preparation to sustain such experiences. We see this happening in Adhar Lal Sen’s life. We see this in Raja Ajit Singh’s life too. Intense emotion can push prana through the Sushumna. The body however won’t be able to sustain the resulting spiritual experience. Sustained Brahmacharya alone can prepare the body, nerves and the mind to digest such experiences.

************************

---

[1] Master as I saw him: Ch- XIV: Past & Future in India

[2] https://vedatitananda.wordpress.com/2024/06/17/study-of-the-isha-upanishad/

[3] Sri Ramakrishna & His Divine Play: Swami Saradananda; 2003; Vedanta Society of St. Louis: Page: 361

[4] Complete Works of Sister Nivedita: Vol-3: Religion & Dharma: Ch-XXVI: Work

[5] Some readers may object to the view presented here. They may point out, like Gwilym Beckerlegge has done, that this view is a superimposition by Swami Vivekananda and Saradananda on Sri Ramakrishna, and that Sri Ramakrishna actually preferred Naradiya Bhakti alone for the common man. In fact, Beckerlegge, a research scholar has published two famous books through Oxford University Press called ‘The Ramakrishna Mission: The Making of a Modern Hindu Movement (2000) and Swami Vivekananda’s Legacy of Service: A Study of the Ramakrishna Math and Mission (2006)’ wherein he presents this argument. We request our readers to kindly read on for clarification on this topic. It will be pertinent to quote an illuminating passage from Life of Swami Vivekananda by his Eastern & Western disciples:

Swami Adbhutananda was taking him (Swami Vivekananda) to task for not preaching the ideas of Shri Ramakrishna, and was challenging him to prove how his plans could be reconciled with the latter’s teachings. Shri Ramakrishna insisted, above all, on Bhakti and on the practice of Sadhana for the realization of God; while the Swami, Adbhutananda pointed out, was constantly urging them to go about preaching, and serving the poor and the diseased – those things that turned the mind outward, which was the great impediment to Sadhana. Then again, the Swami’s idea of starting Maths and Homes of Service for the public good, his ideas of organization and of patriotism, which were undoubtedly Western in conception, his efforts to create a new type of sannyasi with a broader ideal of renunciation, and other ideas similar in spirit, were incompatible with Shri Ramakrishna’s ideal of renunciation and would surely have been repudiated by him.

The Swami at first took these observations of Swami Adbhutananda lightly and retorted jokingly, saying: “What do you know? You are an ignorant man. You are indeed a fit disciple of Shri Ramakrishna! Like guru like chela! Your education ended with ‘Ka’, the first letter of the alphabet, like that of Prahlada. Being reminded by ‘Ka’ of Krishna, he could not proceed further. You are Bhaktas, in other words, sentimental fools! What do you understand of religion? You are babies. You are only good at praying with folded hands: ‘O Lord! How beautiful Your nose is, how sweet Your eyes are’, and such nonsense. And you think your salvation is secured, that Shri Ramakrishna will come at the final hour and take you up by the hand to the highest heaven! Study, public preaching, and doing humanitarian works are, according to you, Maya, because Shri Ramakrishna did not do them himself, because he said to someone, ‘Seek and find God first; doing good to the world is presumptuous!’ As if God-realization is such an easy thing to achieve! As if He is such a fool as to make himself a plaything in the hands of an imbecile!”

Swami Adbhutananda later told a devotee: “I was stunned to hear all these things; and when some other brother-monk tried to say something, taking up the thread of our talk, Vivekananda grew more and more serious, and thundered on.”

The Swami now said: “You think you understand Shri Ramakrishna better than myself! You think jnana is dry knowledge to he attained by a desert path, killing out the tenderest faculties of the heart. Your Bhakti is sentimental nonsense which makes one impotent. You want to preach Ramakrishna as you have understood him, which is mighty little. Hands off! Who cares for your Ramakrishna? Who cares for your Bhakti and Mukti? Who cares what the scriptures say? I will go to hell cheerfully a thousand times, if I can rouse my countrymen, immersed in Tamas (inertia), and make them stand on their own feet and be Men, inspired with the spirit of Karma-Yoga. I am not a follower of Ramakrishna or any one; I am a follower of him only who carries out my plans! I am not a servant of Ramakrishna or any one, but of him only who serves and helps others, without caring for his own Mukti.” 

[6] Complete Works: Vol-1: Karma-Yoga: Ch-VIII: The Ideal of Karma-Yoga

[7] ibid

[8] Complete Works: Vol-1: Karma-Yoga: Ch-VII: Freedom

[9] Ibid

[10] Ibid

[11] Complete Works: Vol-1: Karma-Yoga: Ch-II: Each is great in his own place

[12] Complete Works: Vol-2: Work and its secret

[13] Complete Works: Vol-6: Epistles-2^nd Series: to Sister Nivedita on 28^th March, 1900

[14] Complete Works: Vol-2: Practical Vedanta & other lectures: Yajnavalkya & Maitreyi

[15] The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna: entry on Saturday, December 6, 1884: Chapter: Bankim Chandra

[16] Ibid

[17] The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna: entry on Wednesday, February 25, 1885

[18] The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna: entry on Wednesday, February 25, 1885

[19] The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna: entry on October 22, 1885

[20] The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna: entry on Friday, October 23, 1885: Chapter: The Master & Dr Sarkar

[21] The sayings of the Desert Fathers: Tr by Benedicta Ward, SLG: Pg: 60

[22] Tazkirat-al-Awliya: by Fariduddin al Attar of Nishapur

The Buddha’s Message – the path to Peace & Harmony

This article is an offering to Bhagavan Buddha on his 2569^th birth anniversary this year.

Before we delve into the topic of this article, a word about the history of this great organization will be in order. The Mahabodhi Society of India was founded in 1891 by Anagarika Dhammapala, a Sri Lankan Buddhist monk, who was also a participant in the World Congress of Religions held at Chicago in 1893, where Swami Vivekananda also spoke. These two great souls – Dhammapala and Swami Vivekananda – had a very sweet relationship all their life. In fact, in Chicago, Swami Vivekananda spoke so well on Buddhism, apart from Hinduism, that many Americans mistook him to be Buddhist monk, instead of a Hindu monk! And it is recorded that Swamiji was proud of this recognition, misguided though it was, from the Americans.

This article will try to study Bhagavan Buddha and his invaluable message, especially as understood by Swami Vivekananda, and thereby establish how that 2500-years old message is still relevant to us today.

It is indeed a great wonder that Swami Vivekananda, a bonafide Vedantic monk, spoke so much about Bhagavan Buddha and his message, that the misconceptions of the Americans in this regard seems to be justified. We can safely say that both in the West and in India, whenever Swami Vivekananda spoke on the Hindu religion, Bhagavan Buddha was sure to find a mention. We shall see the reason for this. But first of all, we shall establish Bhagavan Buddha in historical perspective. Buddha was worshipped as an Avatara of God in India, both during his lifetime and thereafter. It would be wrong to say that Buddha was separate or different from the Mother-Religion, that is Hinduism.

In a significant lecture that Swami Vivekananda delivered at the Chicago Parliament of Religion on 26^th September 1893, Swami Vivekananda said: “I am not a Buddhist, as you have heard, and yet I am. If China, or Japan, or Ceylon follow the teachings of the Great Master, India worships him as God incarnate on earth. You have just now heard that I am going to criticise Buddhism, but by that I wish you to understand only this. Far be it from me to criticise him whom I worship as God incarnate on earth…The relation between Hinduism and what is called Buddhism at the present day is nearly the same as between Judaism and Christianity. Jesus Christ was a Jew, and Shakya Muni was a Hindu. The Jews rejected Jesus Christ, nay, crucified him, and the Hindus have accepted Shakya Muni as God and worship him. But the real difference that we Hindus want to show between modern Buddhism and what we should understand as the teachings of Lord Buddha lies principally in this: Shakya Muni came to preach nothing new. He also, like Jesus, came to fulfil and not to destroy. Only, in the case of Jesus, it was the old people, the Jews, who did not understand him, while in the case of Buddha, it was his own followers who did not realise the import of his teachings. As the Jew did not understand the fulfilment of the Old Testament, so the Buddhist did not understand the fulfilment of the truths of the Hindu religion. Again, I repeat, Shakya Muni came not to destroy, but he was the fulfilment, the logical conclusion, the logical development of the religion of the Hindus.” [1]

During a lecture in Madras, Swami Vivekananda said: “Ours is the religion of which Buddhism with all its greatness is a rebel child, and of which Christianity is a very patchy imitation.” ^[2]

It is in light of these two utterances of Swami Vivekananda that we shall be studying Bhagavan Buddha and his message.

Let us take up the statement that Swami Vivekananda made in the Chicago Parliament of Religions – Buddha came to preach nothing new. Why did he make this statement? It was mainly because, in India, we have come to believe that Buddhism is a totally different religion as compared to Hinduism. By making this great utterance, Swami Vivekananda is correcting that view, that Buddha’s religion is not new, and different from Hinduism. Buddha’s religion is the same as Hinduism, and can be considered as a logical extension of the Hinduism that existed during that time. This statement is important. The moment anyone claims that he has discovered something new in religion, and that he has monopoly over it, and that it is the sole truth, and that everything else that was known in religion till then has been false – once these claims are made, religion stops being an integrating force and becomes a curse on mankind.

The cause of much of the discord in this world is this claim – that my religion is right and everything else is false. Before the advent of Buddha, we do not find this claim. Swami Vivekananda says that Bhagavan Buddha too did not make any such claim. He says that Buddha’s followers made that claim and that was the source of similar claims in history thereafter.

When we look at the philosophy that developed as Buddhism, it would indeed be very difficult to call it the same as Hinduism. Swami Vivekananda says: “Well, I do not understand his doctrine – we Hindus never understood it. But I can understand the motive behind that. Oh, the gigantic motive! The Master says that selfishness is the great curse of the world; that we are selfish and that therein is the curse. There should be no motive for selfishness. You are like a river passing on – a continuous phenomenon. Have no God; have no soul; stand on your feet and do good for good’s sake – neither for fear of punishment nor for the sake of going anywhere. Stand sane and motiveless. The motive is: I want to do good, it is good to do good. Tremendous! Tremendous! I do not sympathise with his metaphysics at all; but my mind is jealous when I think of the moral force. Just ask your minds which one of you can stand for one hour, able and daring like that man. I cannot for five minutes. I would become a coward and want a support. I am weak – a coward. And I warm to think of this tremendous giant. We cannot approach that strength. The world never saw anything compared to that strength. And I have not yet seen any other strength like that. We are all born cowards. If we can save ourselves we care about nothing else. Inside is the tremendous fear, the tremendous motive, all the time. Our own selfishness makes us the most arrant cowards; our own selfishness is the great cause of fear and cowardice. And there he stood: ‘Do good because it is good; ask no more questions; that is enough. A man made to do good by a fable, a story, a superstition – he will be doing evil as soon as the opportunity comes. That man alone is good who does good for good’s sake, and that is the character of the man.’” [3]

So, as far as philosophy goes, it is indeed difficult to connect Buddhism with Hinduism. But, the personality of Buddha is a perfect manifestation of everything that Hinduism teaches and stands for. Hinduism has always had more than one religious tradition, unlike most other religions. Thus, while Hinduism had great faith in God and rituals, at the very same time, Hinduism encouraged a strong atheistic or agnostic tradition too. Most of the Upanishads follow this atheistic or agnostic tradition. Buddha too did the same thing. Just like the Upanishad Rishis, Buddha found that Bhakti, or devotion to God, could become a source of weakness within man. It was far better to be an atheist and develop self-reliance than to become weaker and weaker by depending on God who is external to man. As Buddha famously said, ‘Paraavalambanam hi dukham, niraavalambanam hi sukham.’ All dependence is misery; self-reliance is joy.

The Upanishads developed two important traditions – one centered around God, and the other centered around Atman. The Atman-centric tradition was mainly atheistic or agnostic, since they hardly bothered about God and his creation. Buddha took this one step further when he said, “Have no God; have no soul; stand on your feet and do good for good’s sake – neither for fear of punishment nor for the sake of going anywhere. Stand sane and motiveless.” Depend on no one, not even on concepts such as God and Atman. Instead, purify yourself. That was Buddha’s message. The Hindu brain has always been amazingly analytical. Sometimes, the Hindu analytical brain seems to have been developed at the cost of the feeling heart. Buddha fulfilled this need for Hinduism. Social and religious rules cannot overrule mutual fellow-feeling. Even during Buddha’s time, he found that the Hindu could become heartless at times, ensuring conformity to social rules, at the cost of the well-being of our own fellow human beings. Buddha corrected this lacuna in Hinduism by insisting that instead of obsessing with God and soul, we ought to care for our fellow-being. The outcome of every Upanishadic teaching too was supposed to be this very thing – caring for our fellow-being. But, instead of that, we had started to focus endlessly on God and Atman. Swami Vivekananda says: “No man’s eating can satisfy another man. No man’s seeing God can save another man. You have to see God yourself. All these people fighting about what God’s nature is – whether He has three heads in one body or five heads in six bodies. Have you seen God? No. … And they do not believe they can ever see Him. What fools we mortals be! Sure, lunatics!” [4]

Swami Vivekananda was never tired of reiterating that realization alone is true religion. He said, “Reason, theories, documents, doctrines, books, religious ceremonies, are all helps to religion: religion itself consists in realization. We all say, ‘There is a God.’ Have you seen God? That is the question. You hear a man say, ‘There is God in heaven.’ You ask him if he has seen Him, and if he says he has, you would laugh at him and say he is a maniac. With most people religion is a sort of intellectual assent and goes no further than a document. I would not call it religion. It is better to be an atheist than to have that sort of religion. Religion does not depend on our intellectual assent or dissent. You say there is a soul. Have you seen the soul? How is it we all have souls and do not see them? You have to answer the question and find out the way to see the soul. If not, it is useless to talk of religion. If any religion is true, it must be able to show us the soul and show us God and the truth in ourselves. If you and I fight for all eternity about one of these doctrines or documents, we shall never come to any conclusion. People have been fighting for ages, and what is the outcome? Intellect cannot reach there at all. We have to go beyond the intellect; the proof of religion is in direct perception. The proof of the existence of this wall is that we see it; if you sat down and argued about its existence or non-existence for ages, you could never come to any conclusion; but directly you see it, it is enough. If all the men in the world told you it did not exist, you would not believe them, because you know that the evidence of your own eyes is superior to that of all the doctrines and documents in the world.” [5]

The Upanishad Rishis themselves would have been aghast to find that their teachings had been misunderstood in this manner, where neglecting the living God, we fought over ideas and concepts.

Swami Vivekananda paints an amazing picture of this phenomenon: “Man was loving God and had forgotten all about his brother man. The man who in the name of God can give up his very life, can also turn around and kill his brother man in the name of God. That was the state of the world. They would sacrifice the son for the glory of God, would rob nations for the glory of God, would kill thousands of beings for the glory of God, would drench the earth with blood for the glory of God. This was the first time they turned to the other God – man. It is man that is to be loved. It was the first wave of intense love for all men – the first wave of true unadulterated wisdom – that, starting from India, gradually inundated country after country, north, south, east, west.” [6] Just look at the term Swami Vivekananda uses – the other God. It is exactly the message that the Upanishads had proclaimed, that it is God alone that exists – as man, woman, child, the entire universe. When that is so, why should we obsess over ideas?

Thus, Buddha’s message was a fulfilment, a culmination of the Hindu message.

Sectarian violence is rooted in this fictitious difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. Before the advent of Buddha, we had Avataras or Prophets, both in Hinduism and in Judaism, the two oldest religions of the world. The Avataras had a code of conduct, so to say. Every prophet would give his message to the world, and then would demonstrate how his message was nothing new, but was just a reiteration, a renewal of the old message. Every Avatara did this, till Buddha. From the followers of Bhagavan Buddha was heard for the first time that theirs was the only true path to Truth, and that all the others were positively false or wrong. The Hindu response to this claim also was delayed, which resulted in a schism within India, whereby most of the lower castes shifted to Buddhism, and formally left Hinduism. Many centuries later, when Islam and Christianity entered India, it was the same lower castes that shifted to these two religions. That is the reason we find that even though there was no genocide in its history, the number of Buddhists has always been abysmally low in India.

What is the relation between religion and morality? This question has plagued man since time immemorial. In most of the answers, morality was derived from religion. Why should we be good? Because God commanded us to be so. Why should we not harm someone? Because God has forbidden it. So, all do’s and don’ts derived from God. Thus, morality was dependent on God and religion. Buddha very specifically said that we should do good, not because our religion says so, or God has mandated it so; we should be good because it is what is right. As Swami Vivekananda pointed out clearly, we should do good because it is good to do good. It is in Buddha’s message that we find the correct relationship between morality and religion. In every respect, morality is the foundation on which religion is built. It is not the other way round as commonly understood all over the world.

This is important today, especially in the modern global situation. As long as people all lived in an exclusive community, it was easy to derive morality from religion. All people within an exclusive community believe in the same God and same religion and hence it is possible to base their conception of morality on their religion. What happens when people of different religions start mingling and living together? They will not all subscribe to the same conceptions of God and religion. Hence, they will not have common conceptions of morality too. It is in such globalized situations that Buddha’s conception of religion and ethics becomes very relevant. Why will I not harm others? Not because my religion says so, or my God says so. I will not harm anyone because I do not like to harm anyone. My own nature prohibits me from harming anyone. The present-day dilemma of fundamentalism can only be solved on the basis of this teaching of the great Bhagavan Buddha.

Swami Vivekananda spoke about his vision of Bhagavan Buddha: “One day, when I kept my mind still and devoid of all objects, there flowed in it a current of serene bliss. Under its influence, I felt a sort of intoxication for a long time even after the end of the meditation; so I did not feel inclined to leave my seat and get up immediately. One day when I was sitting in that condition at the end of the meditation, I saw the wonderful figure of a monk appear suddenly-from where I did not know-and stand before me at a little distance, filling the room with a divine effulgence. He was in ochre robes with a Kamandalu (water-pot) in his hand. His face bore such a calm and serene expression of inwardness born of indifference to all things, that I was amazed and felt much drawn to him. He walked towards me with a slow step, his eyes steadfastly fixed on me, as if he wanted to say something. But I was seized with fear and could not keep still. I got up from my seat, opened the door, and quickly left the room. The next moment I thought, “Why this foolish fear?” I became bold and went back into the room to listen to the monk, who, alas, was no longer there. I waited long in vain, feeling dejected and repenting that I had been so stupid as to flee without listening to him. I have seen many monks, but never have I seen such an extraordinary expression on any other face. That face has been indelibly printed on my heart. It may have been a hallucination; but very often I think that I had the good fortune of seeing Lord Buddha that day.” [7]

This is an amazing divine vision of Bhagavan Buddha by Swami Vivekananda, as described in his own words. Let us note a couple of things in this vision. Firstly, Bhagavan Buddha wanted to say something to the young Swami Vivekananda. Secondly, the young Swami was filled with fear, got up from his seat before Buddha could say something to him, and left the room. What is the reason for these two things?

Two thousand five hundred years ago, when God incarnated in this land as Bhagavan Buddha, he created an alternate social structure in India. The prevalent social structure was the Caste system. Buddha created the Sangha, which was an alternate system. People who were displeased with the caste system, people who were not entertained or encouraged by the caste system, and people who were outright rejected by the caste system were absorbed into the Sangha by Buddha. This arrangement resulted in such an incredible improvement in India that within 500 years of the Buddha’s advent, India went back to being the greatest nation in the world. Then, the old Hindu religion rejected the Sangha, re-instituted the caste system, and as a result, slowly Buddha’s message was gradually forgotten by India. But India’s survival depends upon accepting the message of the Lord. In all probabilities, Buddha wanted to instruct the young Swami in these important ideas – how to rejuvenate this great motherland of ours.

Swami Vivekananda once said about himself, “I am condensed India.” [8] So, when the young Swami was seized by fear, got up and left the room, it was probably because ‘the condensed India’ was intuiting what Buddha would tell him – to establish a corporate social structure akin to the Sangha in India, for the good of all and benefit of all – bahujana sukhaya, bahujana hitaya. Indeed, many years later, Swami Vivekananda would say that he had faced the greatest temptation of his life while in America and that was organization. We all know how the present Constitution of India has all but abolished the caste system and has instituted a corporate system of social structure in India. Caste distinctions are prohibited as per our Constitution, and caste-based discrimination is today punishable by law. Swami Vivekananda himself was aware of this correction that India needed. He himself said to Sister Nivedita that he was re-instituting the very social reformation that Bhagavan Buddha had done 2500 years ago, and which this nation had rejected 1500 years ago. He was afraid whether modern India would listen to him. He further said that India’s greatest mistake was in refusing to listen to the Lord’s word when Buddha said that all social distinctions must vanish from India. India is now listening to that same message and is working it out. Just look at the dividends that India is reaping. It is not even 100 years since these reforms have been instituted and we have already had people from all backgrounds succeeding in any field of human endeavor they wish. That is the power of an Avatara.

Only a few important aspects of Bhagavan Buddha’s life and message have been highlighted in this article. Many more learned articles and dissertations will be presented in this commemorative souvenir to the discerning devotees and readers.

Let us pray to the One God that appears again and again amidst us, in the form of the Avatara to guide us towards life fulfilment.

*****************

---

[1] Complete Works: Vol-1: Addresses at The Parliament of Religions: Buddhism, the fulfilment of Hinduism

[2] Complete Works: Vol-3: Lectures from Colombo to Almora: The Work before us

[3] Complete Works: Vol-3: Buddhistic India

[4] Complete Works: Vol-1: Lectures & Discourses: The Gita – III

[5] Complete Works: Vol-4: Addresses on Bhakti-Yoga: The Need of Symbols

[6] Complete Works: Vol-8: Lectures & Discourses: Buddha’s Message to the World

[7] Life of Swami Vivekananda: by his Eastern & Western Disciples: Pg: 114

[8] Swami Vivekananda – A Biography: by Swami Nikhilananda

Swami Vivekananda and Nationalism

Today, I will try to explain to you a few aspects of Swami Vivekananda’s conception of Nationalism. Before I start dealing with the subject, I wish to clarify two important points regarding Swamiji, in this context.

• A word of caution:
• Swamiji’s exact conception of Nationalism is very deep, very complex, and rooted in spirituality. No one, at present at least, can claim to have understood this great man fully, and hence, no one at present can claim to have grasped Swamiji’s conception of Nationalism. The formulation of Swamiji’s Nationalism is still a work in progress. Swamiji was a man who had achieved the highest spiritual experiences, and had entirely obliterated the distinction between personal and collective. So, when he speaks about the collective, about the Nation, it sort of makes sense to us. But we must repeatedly ask ourselves, ‘Is our understanding correct? Is it exactly what Swamiji wanted to convey?’ We ourselves have a deep-rooted distinction between the personal and the collective. Yet we sort of understand what Swamiji is saying about the collective, about the Nation. We must have the humility to ask ourselves, ‘Is our understanding correct?’ We must further ask ourselves, ‘Can we really understand this man fully, without ourselves becoming spiritually free?’ We would do well to repeatedly revisit our understanding of this great soul, in step with our own spiritual development, and not conclude that my present understanding of Swamiji is full and final.

• Swamiji repeatedly said that spiritual leaders had no business dictating social rules and regulations to society. Spiritual leaders, especially monks, who had renounced social life, who do not participate wholeheartedly in social, economic and political activity, have no right or business in poking their nose into this area at all. Yet, we find Swamiji made some startling and important statements regarding social life, especially of Indians. We must always keep in mind the warning he gave out repeatedly – ‘Hands off!’ to spiritual leaders regarding dictating social life. Then why did Swamiji make such utterances? All such statements made by Swamiji have to be understood as an attempt at ‘reconciling the material world with religion’, and nothing more.

We must remember that in the Bhagavad Gita, the Prophet specifically asks Arjuna to raise arms and kill others. Yet, Hindus understood that command as a personal directive and not as a social dictum. Compare and contrast this with the Koran, where a similar command to kill others was given by the Prophet, which has wreaked havoc in the world ever-since. The difference in the response in the two cases lies one vital area; with the Hindus, the command to kill was understood as specifically personal; with the Muslims, the command to kill was understood as a social injunction.

If we are not careful in this aspect, we will run the danger of conflating a personal directive with a social directive and we may end up concluding that Swamiji has indeed asked us, Hindus, to take up arms against our own people.

It is to avoid these two dangerous developments that I think it is important to highlight these two points before we start our explanation of Swamiji’s Nationalism. In fact, to some extent, these two dangerous developments have already started to take shape in India in the recent past. People who do not have the intellectual bandwidth to understand Swamiji in his entirety, and who simultaneously have the hubris of an under-developed spiritual life have already started concluding that Swamiji encourages violence as an option in social life! I believe that is a myopic conclusion.

With this word of caution, we can now start our exercise of understanding Swamiji’s Nationalism.

• National Amnesia:

When Swamiji returned to India from the West in 1896, he toured to many cities and towns in India, starting from Colombo in Sri Lanka, and ending at Almora, passing through Madras, Kolkata, Dacca, and Lahore. At each of these places, he delivered elaborate lectures. All of them point out to some fundamental ideas that are needed for Indians to form their own natural conception of Nationalism. These lectures were all recorded verbatim by a devoted stenographer called Goodwin, who accompanied Swamiji everywhere. In fact, this collection of lectures called ‘Lectures from Colombo to Almora’ was found in the possession of every freedom fighter during the Freedom Movement. This led the British to suspect that Swami Vivekananda (he was dead by then) and his organization – the Ramakrishna Mission – were involved in seditious, anti-British activities! But, the root of Indian Nationalism can be traced to these lectures of Swami Vivekananda.

Of the many ideas that Swamiji highlighted in these lectures, one common idea is that Indians seem to be having a national amnesia. We are proud to be a 10,000-year-old civilization, with an unbroken existence. Yet, we know nothing about our own past. Our history seems to begin with the invasion of Qutub-ud-Din Aibak, the Mamluk slave king from Turkey. Before that, our past seems to be like the remnants of a dream, all hazy, and nothing clear and definite.

The modern method of recording history is a recent development, mainly by the Muslims and the Christians. The Indian method of recording history is different from the western method. Hence, by western standards, our people do not have a history before the Islam and British invasion! This is absurd.

Of the innumerable scriptures in Hinduism, two books – Ramayana and Mahabharata – are called ‘Itihasa’. Scriptures in Hinduism are of various types – Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Tantras, Agama, Sutras, Itihasas, etc. Itihasa is a Sanskrit term which literally means ‘Iti ha sma’ – Thus it was in the past. We have always believed that human history is influenced by a special manifestation of God among human beings, the Avatara. These two histories of Hindu India are therefore real accounts. Today, we Indians believe that Rama and Krishna are fictional characters. Today’s historians, called ‘Eminences’ by Arun Shourie, ask us if we have any letters written by Rama, or if we have any coins minted by Rama during his rule! Since we do not have the accepted standard historical evidences, we ought to conclude that our entire past is a fairytale! To some extent, the Old Testament too is subjected to a similar brutal rejection as history by modern historians.

The modern historical techniques are unable to handle evidences beyond 2000 years. Whereas we have an authentic record of over 30,000 years of our past. We have records of our past when human cohabited this planet with the Neanderthals and the Denisovans, who are called ‘Rakshasa, and Vanara’ in our histories. But our historical techniques are not accepted by western academics, which brings us to the next point in Swamiji’s Nationalism.

• Economic prowess & prestige:

India had a glorious past. India never militarily invaded any part of the world, not even its neighbors, ever in its history. Yet, Indian footprints are found all over the world – Egypt, Greece, Spain, every nation of South east Asia, etc. If we did not go on military excursions, how do we find Indian colonies and temples to Hindu gods and goddesses all over the world? It was because we were the greatest manufacturers of good, producers of food grains and spices, and providers of services in the past. We were incredible innovators. Our education was designed to innovate and manufacture. We ruled the world economy. Indian business took Indian culture all over the world.

Something went wrong around 1000 years ago. We stopped travelling abroad. That brought foreigners into our land. We also stopped innovating. Our education systems became rigid and started dying out. Our business dwindled. Our militaries became defunct to such an extent that even governance was sub-contracted to foreigners! That is the reason we had foreign powers rule over us for over 1000 years.

While Europe started innovating, fueled by the Islamic revolution, India went into an inexplicable slumber. We were reduced to despicable slavery. Today we have become beggars in the eyes of Europe and America. Even today we do not manufacture for self-reliance. We do not tap our own natural resources for self-reliance. We are dependent on the Islamic Middle East for fuel. Under such circumstances, nobody will take us or our ideas seriously.

We need to urgently develop our economy. We need to generate and distribute wealth within our country. When we become a strong, vibrant, aggressive economy, our voice will be heard all over the world. Very recently, we have seen how, with economic revival, USA and Europe have started respecting our views. This must increase.

Swamiji spent a lot of time in India trying to instill the necessary mindset that will lead to economic recovery and growth. He spelt out the perspective of working for the national economy that would lead to personal spiritual development. For, in India, everything has to be disbursed in spiritual terms, he pointed out. Everything we do has to be imbued with sincerity, for every action in our daily life is connected to the national economy. The microcosm and the macrocosm are intimately connected. Haphazard work fritters energies and is a national waste.

When we make India into an economic power, we will gain prestige. The world will listen to us, to our views, and respect them. Today we hear cries that western academia does not give India any respect, any consideration. Rajiv Malhotra and his Infinity Foundation is doing a good job in raising this issue at the world fora. The situation, however, is par for course. As long as we are dependent on western nations, this situation will continue. We are fortunately politically free today. But economically and technologically, we are still slaves, dependent on the West, on Middle East Asia, and on China. Hence our religion, our culture, our past, our very existence is taken for granted by the world. That should change.

Nothing special needs to be done in India for bringing about this change. Sincerity alone will achieve it, says Swamiji. The term he uses is Shraddha. Everything that we are doing now, if we do it with Shraddha, in just one generation, the entire scenario will change. That is the power of Shraddha within every person. Our education, our jobs, our families – everything has to be taken seriously. That is Swamiji’s Nationalism.

• Two unresolved social problems:

Swamiji points out that we have not resolved two important social problems in India. Unless we resolve these two issues, our existence as a Nation will be unstable and tumultuous. The unresolved social problems are: 1) Status of Caste in Hindu society; 2) Religious disharmony in India.

• Status of Caste in Hindu society: The Hindus in India have an unresolved Caste problem that bogs down the development of their society. Hindus have not yet learned what to prioritize – their Hindu identity? Or their Caste and sub-Caste identity! The conflict is so deeply ingrained in Hindu society that two very interesting phenomena are seen in India.

• One: While the Hindu identity stems from their religion, their Caste identity stems from their economic activity. Today, when all economic activity has been corporatized in Indian society, we no longer need Caste and its guild-benefits for our economy. But, over the past centuries, this Caste system has become identified with the Hindu religion. Today, we do use the Caste identity for nothing except voting during elections, and to get various benefits from the Governments! This categorization in our society has to be discontinued.

• Two: When Hindus get converted to other religions, such as Christian or Islam, they carry along their Caste distinctions there too! This is a unique phenomenon in India alone. Nowhere else in the world do we get to see this. Thus, a converted Christian proudly emphasizes his Caste distinction within the larger Christian fold! So also with Islam.

We now have Constitutional directives to resolve the Caste problem in India. Many legislations too have been passed by various Governments since our Independence. But, all of these are of no avail. The change in mindset needs to come from within each individual. Unless we free ourselves of this drag from our past, we will be unable to emphasize our Hindu identity, and feel kinship with all Hindus. The Swadesh-Mantra composed by Swamiji aims at just this: “Forget not that thy social order is but the reflex of the Infinite Universal Motherhood; forget not that the lower classes, the ignorant, the poor, the illiterate, the cobbler, the sweeper, are thy flesh and blood, thy brothers. Thou brave one, be bold, take courage, be proud that thou art an Indian, and proudly proclaim, ‘I am an Indian, every Indian is my brother.’ Say, ‘The ignorant Indian, the poor and destitute Indian, the Brahmin Indian, the Pariah Indian, is my brother.’ Thou, too, clad with but a rag round thy loins proudly proclaim at the top of thy voice: ‘The Indian is my brother, the Indian is my life, India’s gods and goddesses are my God….’”

Today we find many Hindus getting angry at proselytizing religions (mainly Christianity & Islam) for forcibly converting low Caste Hindus and tribals into their religions. This allegation is always countered with the question – Is it really ‘forced conversion’ every time? Owing to the severe discrimination meted out to the lower Castes by upper-Caste Hindus, could the lower Castes not be willfully entering other religions? Hindus need to introspect on this important issue. Hindus need to prioritize their Hindu identity and obliterate their Caste and sub-Caste identities, when it comes to dealing with themselves.

• Religious disharmony in Indian society: Indian society is a melting pot of religions and cultures. Since time immemorial, India has always had more than one religion and culture. Right up to the birth of Bhagavan Buddha, India knew how to assimilate various religions and cultures. From Buddha’s period onwards, something snapped in India’s social resilience and we started having religions which could not assimilate, leading to a fractured society, always on the verge of a civil war. Today, we have Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam and Christianity, living unassimilated with Hinduism in India. This religious disharmony in India is a major challenge to our concept of one Nation.

Until about 250 years ago, people would have laughed if anyone considered Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism as religions, different from Hinduism. If you had asked told any Mughal ruler that the Sikhs were different from the Hindus, he would have considered you a lunatic. The resistance offered to Jahangir and Aurangzeb by the Sikh Gurus was a purely Hindu response. The Guru Granth Sahib is full of Sri Rama and Sri Krishna! The ignorance of the British led to the Census data declaring all these as different religions. And we are all today very happy and comfortable to continue this ignorant, myopic view of the British, mainly because it serves short-term political purposes, blind to the fact that it is National suicide!

Recall Swamiji’s Swadesh-Mantra quoted above: “Thou brave one, be bold, take courage, be proud that thou art an Indian, and proudly proclaim, ‘I am an Indian, every Indian is my brother’…proudly proclaim at the top of thy voice: ‘The Indian is my brother, the Indian is my life, India’s gods and goddesses are my God….’” Love trumps all divisions. Swamiji teaches us to develop a super-self-identity called ‘Indian’ (Bharatvasi), which will subsume all our identities such as Caste, sub-Caste, and religion. This needs to be done at the earliest. Else, we have no hope of creating an Indian Nation. When a person is given a kidney transplant, if the donor’s kidney is not made compatible to the recipient, the recipient’s body will reject the donor’s kidney, and his body will go into a shock, leading to cardiac arrest. Similar is the case in a Nation when various religions live unassimilated in its society.

In the Taittiriya Upanishad, we have the Rishi teaching his students a Mantra before beginning class every day. Shan no Mitrah sham Varunaha; sham no bhavatu Aryaman; sham na Indro Brihaspatihi; sham no Vishnu urukramaha; namo Brahmane; namaste Vayu… This is a prayer seeking blessings from various gods and goddesses. Mitra was the god of the people from the Middle-East Asia; Varuna (Uranus) was the god of the Greeks; Aryaman (Ahirman) was the god of the Zoroastrians from the Middle East Asia; Indra, Brihaspati and Vishnu were gods of the Indians; the Rishi would teach all his students to pray for blessings to all these gods; he would have students from all these regions, following their own religions. The kids were taught to respect and pray to all gods and goddesses. Then the Rishi taught them ‘Namo Brahmane, namaste Vayu’; all gods and goddesses are but various forms of the One God Brahman; and the Power of Brahman is Vayu (or Shakti), who is actually immanent everywhere (twameva pratyaksham Brahmasi). This type of education kept a multi-religious society in harmony. this type of education also enabled a globalized workforce from the Indians in the ancient times. This type of education is what is attempted by Swamiji in his Swadesh-Mantra.

These two unresolved problems need to be addressed by us, Indians, sooner or later. Back in 1901, Swamiji said to Nivedita: “In order to become a nation, it appears that we need a common hate as well as a common love”. [1] in fact, when we study the dynamics of Nationalism anywhere in the world, this comes out as a general principle. In his masterful essay ‘Modern India’ Swamiji points out: A common danger, or sometimes a common cause of hatred or love, is the bond that binds people together. [2] The creation of Pakistan has indeed provided us with a common hate, which we lacked in India all through our history. But the unresolved equation of Hinduism with Islam has resulted in this common hate spilling over to the Muslims residing within India now. There is no point in analyzing who is how much at fault for this peculiar situation in India. Immediately, both the Hindus and the Muslims will engage in bitter and acrimonious ‘whataboutery’. I wish to highlight the solution, the remedy that Swamiji has advised for us in this matter, as enshrined in the Swadesh-Mantra.

• What we need:

Swamiji was a great student of history. He repeatedly asked himself what made Nations great. India herself was incredibly great, not so long ago. Today, we have the West achieving great levels of excellence in many areas of human activity. What lies behind such manifestation of human excellence?

Sister Nivedita makes an amazing observation regarding Swamiji and Nationalism. She writes: “He neither used the word ‘nationality’, nor proclaimed an era of ‘nation-making’. ‘Man-making’, he said, was his own task.” [3] We should never lose sight of this idea. If the man is created, the Nation gets built.

For us Indians, Swamiji spelt out most precisely what we needed in order to achieve national development, along with personal life fulfilment. He said, “What we want are Western science coupled with Vedanta, Brahmacharya as the guiding motto, and also Shraddha and faith in one’s own self.” [4]

Swamiji spelt out the ideals of the Indian Nation: “The national ideals of India are renunciation and service. Intensify her in those channels, and the rest will take care of itself. The banner of the spiritual cannot be raised too high in this country. In it alone is salvation.”[5]

Swamiji did not mince words when he described the method of achieving our Indian Nation: “If this nation wants to rise, take my word for it, it will have to rally enthusiastically round this name. It does not matter who preaches Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, whether I, or you, or anybody else. But him I place before you, and it is for you to judge, and for the good of our race, for the good of our nation, to judge now, what you shall do with this great ideal of life.” [6]

Further, Swamiji described Indian Nationalism as something unique in the world. He said: “If a Hindu is not spiritual, I do not call him a Hindu. In other countries a man may be political first, and then he may have a little religion, but here in India the first and the foremost duty of our lives is to be spiritual first, and then, if there is time, let other things come. Bearing this in mind we shall be in a better position to understand why, for our national welfare, we must first seek out at the present day all the spiritual forces of the race, as was done in days of yore and will be done in all times to come. National union in India must be a gathering up of its scattered spiritual forces. A nation in India must be a union of those whose hearts beat to the same spiritual tune.” [7]

In the February 1929 issue of the Prabuddha Bharata, Swami Ashokananda wrote an amazing editorial titled ‘Spiritualizing Nationalism’. In that editorial, he delineated Swamiji’s conception of Nationalism in great detail, contrasting the same with the conceptions of Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore. He says in the editorial that Swamiji situates Indian nationalism in the perspective of internationalism, thereby defanging nationalism of all its parochial poison. The slave and the brute must grow into nationalism and become a citizen, but should not stagnate there. The citizen should further outgrow his nationalism and become an international citizen, fulfilling his nationalism in the truest possible sense. Further, the editorial explains that the new paradigm of human activity that Swamiji gave us will enable us to engage in all sorts of economic and social activity that will forge an Indian Nation from our feudal, caste-ridden, tribal mentalities, fusing our own spiritual development with National development. Moreover, the editorial explains in detail how the Vedanta conception of Atman “alone is the great thought that is going to revolutionist the world and reconcile the knowledge of the material world with religion.”[8]

All thinking people of India ought to study this particular editorial.

We end with these words of Swamiji: “To make a great future India, the whole secret lies in organization, accumulation of power, co-ordination of wills. Already before my mind rises one of the marvelous verses of the Rig-Veda Samhita which says, ‘Be thou all of one mind, be thou all of one thought, for in the days of yore, the gods being of one mind were enabled to receive oblations.’ That the gods can be worshipped by men is because they are of one mind. Being of one mind is the secret of society. And the more you go on fighting and quarrelling about all trivialities such as ‘Dravidian’ and ‘Aryan’, and the question of Brahmins and non-Brahmins and all that, the further you are off from that accumulation of energy and power which is going to make the future India. For mark you, the future India depends entirely upon that. That is the secret – accumulation of will-power, co-ordination, bringing them all, as it here, into one focus.” [9]

***************

---

[1] Complete Works: Vol-9: Excerpts from Sister Nivedita’s Book: Ch-I: The house on the Ganges

[2] Complete Works: Vol-4: Translations: Prose: Modern India

[3] Master as I saw him: Sr. Nivedita: Ch-III: Conflict of Ideals: Response to India

[4] Complete Works: Vol-5: Conversations & Dialogues: IX: [Sri Priya Nath Sinha]

[5] Complete Works: Vol-5: Interviews: Reawakening of Hinduism on a national basis

[6] Complete Works: Vol-3: Lectures from Colombo to Almora: Address of Welcome presented at Calcutta & Reply

[7] Complete Works: Vol-3: Lectures from Colombo to Almora: The common bases of Hinduism (Lahore Address)

[8] Complete Works: Vol-3: Lectures from Colombo to Almora: Vedantism (Jaffna Address)

[9] Complete Works: Vol-3: Lectures from Colombo to Almora: The future of India (Madras Address)

Whatever you think, that you will be

Goabagan Youth Convention

Today, we will try to understand an extremely interesting statement made by Swami Vivekananda. On two different occasions, while explaining the central message of Vedanta, Swamiji said, “Whatever you think, that you will be.” [1] Swamiji goes on to say: “That (idea) you get alone in the Vedanta – and there alone…this idea of the soul is the life-giving thought, the most wonderful. There and there alone (in Vedanta) is the great thought that is going to revolutionize the world and reconcile the knowledge of the material world with religion.” [2]

This is a seemingly simple statement, but it calls for some serious thought. The most important reason it calls for our serious consideration is the last sentence quoted above – this great thought is going to revolutionize the world and reconcile the knowledge of the material world with religion. How is this so? Let us explore.

First of all, is this statement true for all situations? I mean, if I start thinking that I am Bill Gates, will I become so? We do see some mad people thinking like that! But the world will not accept what I consider as truth about my own self. I may think that I am Bill Gates, but no one else will accept that view about me! And I may be put in a mental hospital, if I persist in such insane thoughts. What then does this statement mean?

One thing is clear. This statement does not refer to material possessions, social status and such things. Merely by thinking that I will get a lot of money, I won’t be getting any money. But thinking is indeed the basis of getting money. Similarly, social status, possessions, fame, recognition and fortune, all these things will come only if there is sufficient thought, followed by sufficient action. There is a very famous book by Napoleon Hill titled ‘Think and grow rich’. This one book has influenced millions of people to increase their financial condition, not by merely thinking, but by strategic thinking followed by equally sincere follow-up action.

This statement of Swamiji is indeed practical when it comes to one’s own self-identity. It is most practical when it comes to transforming one’s own personality. This is the area where this statement of Swamiji is applicable, not with regard to material possessions. Let us see how this is so.

A thief once entered to the large estate of a rich landlord and started catching fish in a pond inside. Some servants of the landlord came to know of this thief and informed the Zamindar, who ordered that he be caught and beaten up for his action. When the thief heard that servants were coming towards him, he immediately removed his clothes and sat down under a large tree, in meditation pose, as if he were a hermit who had wandered into the estate. When the servants came up to him and asked if he had seen a thief nearby, he serenely remarked that he was immersed in the thought of God and hadn’t noticed anybody else. The servants offered pranams to the hermit, went about searching for the thief. Sometime later, the servants returned with milk and fruits as offering to the hermit. When the thief saw this, he was amazed. He said to himself, “If I get this much respect for being a pretend-monk, how much more respect will I not get if I become a true monk!” Thus, the thief transformed himself into a great monk and was revered in those regions.

Just see what happened here. The thief was an immoral guy. But when he got convinced that there is actually great benefit if could become good and moral, he started believing that he was in fact good and moral. And in some time, he actually became good, moral and holy! Whatever you think, that you can be.

There is a very famous movie actor in Hollywood called Antony Hopkins. He acted in a movie on a psychopathic cannibal, based on a novel written by Thomas Harris titled Silence of the lambs. Antony Hopkins played the role of Dr. Hannibal Lector, the psychopathic cannibal. It was a 90 minutes’ movie, in which Hopkins had a mere 14 minutes’ role. But it was depicted so wonderfully that he got the Oscar Award for his role! Later, in an interview, Hopkins described that this portrayal had been so intense that he had to stop working for a few months to get out of the role of Dr. Hannibal Lector! When it comes to one’s own personality, it is possible to become whatever we want, by intensely thinking that we are already that! Just think about it. Antony Hopkins is one of the most celebrated actors, with multiple Oscars Awards. He is a genuinely good person in real life. Yet, when he intensely felt that he was the psychopath created in the novels by Thomas Harris, he felt clearly that he was becoming a psychopathic cannibal himself! That is why Swamiji says, ‘Whatever you think, that you will be.’

In an interview recorded by Walter Isaacson in his monumental biography of albert Einstein, a very interesting statement is present. Einstein said during the course of the interview, “I always believed that if we sincerely probe into Nature, then Nature will give up its secrets to us.” Just see how Einstein implicitly believed that we can indeed understand the secrets of this universe, and this belief enabled him to truly unravel the mysteries of Nature! This is yet another example of Swamiji’s statement, “Whatever you think, that you will be.” There is a popular saying attributed to multiple sources which says, “If you believe you can, then you can!”

Here, we see an instance of this statement being true not just with respect to one’s self-identity, but also to what one can do. But, if you see a little deeply, you will see that this ability to do comes directly from the self-identity that says, ‘I am one who can do this.’ But, this aspect of this great statement has enormous implications in our life. So, we can safely deduce – ‘What you do, derives from who you believe you are!’ This has great implications to our students. When students sit down for studying, often, they start by believing that they will not be able to understand what they are studying. Once, this belief is inside, no amount of studies will help the student understand, memorize and recall. Instead, if they start with the simple belief that they will surely understand the subject matter, the end result will be dramatically different. It looks like we are oversimplifying the matter here, but this is the truth. If you begin with the belief that you can, you will end up with doing it.

Swami Vivekananda says: “I will tell you a story. A lioness in search of prey came upon a flock of sheep, and as she jumped at one of them, she gave birth to a cub and died on the spot. The young lion was brought up in the flock, ate grass, and bleated like a sheep, and it never knew that it was a lion. One day a lion came across the flock and was astonished to see in it a huge lion eating grass and bleating like a sheep. At his sight the flock fled and the lion sheep with them. But the lion watched his opportunity and one day found the lion-sheep asleep. He woke him up and said, ‘You are a lion.’ The other said, ‘No,’ and began to bleat like a sheep. But the stranger lion took him to a lake and asked him to look in the water at his own image and see if it did not resemble him, the stranger lion. He looked and acknowledged that it did. Then the stranger lion began to roar and asked him to do the same. The lion-sheep tried his voice and was soon roaring as grandly as the other. And he was a sheep no longer.” ^[3]

Notice the dynamics of transformation in this amazing story told by Swami Vivekananda. The lion believed it was a sheep and hence its actions were all consistent with a sheep’s behavior. Then, by the grace of the Guru, the lion realized that it was indeed a lion and not a sheep. Thereafter, its actions were all consistent with that of a lion. Actions proceed from one’s self-identity. That is where the power of this statement lies.

Swamiji says, “Born with the consciousness that they were great, they became great!”[4]

Buddha was born as Siddhartha Gautama. During his childhood, his father used to repeatedly tell him that he was destined to become a great conqueror, based on an astrological prediction. As the boy Siddhartha grew up, he went on to become one of the greatest human beings to have walked on earth! “Born with the consciousness that they were great, they became great!”

When Alexander was a child, his mother would often tell him that she had prayed to the Greek god Achilles that he be born as her son. She believed that Alexander was indeed the god Achilles born in her womb. Alexander grew up with this conception of himself. That became his self-identity. “Born with the consciousness that they were great, they became great!”

When Sir Winston Churchill was a school boy, one day he came back home in tears. His mother asked him the reason and he said that he had failed in a test given by his teacher. When she asked him why he had failed, the small boy replied, “I knew so many things. But the teacher insisted on asking me things that I didn’t know!” Listening to this amazing reply, Churchill’s mother told him, “You do not need a school. From tomorrow, you will stay at home and educate yourself.” Thus, Churchill never attended College. He went on to become the Prime Minister of England twice, especially during the most difficult period in history. He also got the Nobel Prize for literature for his six-volume magnum opus ‘The Second World War’. “Born with the consciousness that they were great, they became great!”

Swami Vivekananda was known as Naren and Bileh in his childhood. He was a very mischievous boy. His endless mischiefs made his mother often say in his presence, “I prayed to Mahadeva Shiva to bless me with a boy child. It seems the Lord sent one of his Bhairava’s as my son!” Could it not be that this constant expression by his mother that he was a divine being made Naren into the great Swami Vivekananda later on? “Born with the consciousness that they were great, they became great!”

When we study the incredible life of Sri Ramakrishna, we come face to face with an amazing fact. A young brahmin boy, Gadadhar (as Sri Ramakrishna was known in his younger days) was recruited to conduct the daily worship of the Mother Kali in the newly consecrated Dakshineswar Temple. He started asking uncomfortable questions about the deity he was worshipping. There was no one who could give him any hope of finding answers. He began asking, ‘Does this Goddess really exist? Does She really accept the food-offerings I give her multiple times every day? Can I really see the Divine Mother, or should I be satisfied seeing this black-stone image of Her?’ However, he sincerely believed that he was indeed capable of seeing the Divine Mother. He never doubted his ability to do so. In due course, such an incredible transformation occurred within him that he started seeing the Divine Mother and conversing with Her! He believed he could, and hence he did. “Born with the consciousness that they were great, they became great!”

We saw Swamiji claiming that ‘this great thought is going to revolutionize the world and reconcile the knowledge of the material world with religion.’ This dynamic of one’s self-identity enabling one’s actions is how the great Vedantic idea of ‘whatever you believe, that you will be’ can revolutionize the world and reconcile the knowledge of the material world with religion.

Swamiji says, “The history of the world is the history of a few men who had faith in themselves. That faith calls out the divinity within. You can do anything. You fail only when you do not strive sufficiently to manifest infinite power. As soon as a man or a nation loses faith, death comes.” [5]

He further says, “All power is within you; you can do anything and everything. Believe in that, do not believe that you are weak; do not believe that you are half-crazy lunatics, as most of us do nowadays. You can do anything and everything without even the guidance of anyone. All power is there. Stand up and express the divinity within you.” [6]

**************************

---

[1] Complete Works: Vol-3: Lectures from Colombo to Almora: Vedantism: This glorious soul we must believe in. Out of that will come power. Whatever you think, that you will be. If you think yourselves weak, weak you will be; if you think yourselves strong, strong you will be; if you think yourselves impure, impure you will be; if you think yourselves pure, pure you will be. This teaches us not to think ourselves as weak, but as strong, omnipotent, omniscient. No matter that I have not expressed it yet, it is in me. All knowledge is in me, all power, all purity, and all freedom. Why cannot I express this knowledge? Because I do not believe in it. Let me believe in it, and it must and will come out. This is what the idea of the Impersonal teaches. Make your children strong from their very childhood; teach them not weakness, nor forms, but make them strong; let them stand on their feet — bold, all-conquering, all-suffering; and first of all, let them learn of the glory of the soul. That you get alone in the Vedanta — and there alone. It has ideas of love and worship and other things which we have in other religions, and more besides; but this idea of the soul is the life-giving thought, the most wonderful. There and there alone is the great thought that is going to revolutionist the world and reconcile the knowledge of the material world with religion.

[2] Complete Works: Vol-8: Lectures and Discourses: Is Vedanta the future Religion? Whatever you dream and think of, you create. If it is hell, you die and see hell. If it is evil and Satan, you get a Satan. If ghosts, you get ghosts. Whatever you think, that you become. If you have to think, think good thoughts, great thoughts. This taking for granted that you are weak little worms! By declaring we are weak, we become weak, we do not become better. Suppose we put out the light, close the windows, and call the room dark. Think of the nonsense! What good does it do me to say I am a sinner? If I am in the dark, let me light a lamp. The whole thing is gone. Yet how curious is the nature of men! Though always conscious that the universal mind is behind their life, they think more of Satan, of darkness and lies. You tell them the truth — they do not see it; they like darkness better.

[3] Complete Works: Vol-1: Lectures & Discourses: Soul, God & Religion

[4] Complete Works: Vol-2: Practical Vedanta & other lectures: Practical Vedanta: Part-I

[5] Complete Works: Vol-8: Notes of Class Talks & Lectures: Jnana & Karma

[6] Complete Works: Vol-3: Lectures from Colombo to Almora: The Work Before Us

How to slow down time: Science behind stopping life from passing you by

October 21, 2023

By Janet Choi

One unnerving aspect of getting older is that life seems to speed up. Feeling that whoosh as time rushes past can be disheartening and may leave you wondering how to slow down time.

Part of the reason time seems to speed up as we age is due to our perception.

“For a 10-year-old, one year is 10 percent of their lives,” says neurologist and neuroscientist Dr. Santosh Kesair. “For a 60-year-old, one year is less than two percent of their lives. We gauge time by memorable events and fewer new things occur as we age to remember, making it seem like childhood lasted longer.”

And there’s evidence that young children actually experience time as moving more slowly.

“Children’s working memory, attention, and executive function are all undergoing development at the neural circuit level,” neuroscientist Dr. Patricia Costello says.

“Their neural transmission is in effect physically slower compared to adults. This in turn affects how they perceive the passage of time.”

Another reason time seems to pass us by is that time seems to constrict when you encounter the familiar, and when you acquire new knowledge, it expands.

“Time is this rubbery thing,” says neuroscientist David Eagleman. “It stretches out when you really turn your brain resources on, and when you say, ‘Oh, I got this, everything is as expected,’ it shrinks up.”

That relationship between time’s elasticity and whether your brain is processing new information gets at why time seems to turn up the tempo as we age.

As the world becomes more familiar, we learn less, and sometimes we even seek information and experiences that fit within what we already know instead of trying new things. There’s less adventure, play, exploration, creativity, and wonder to invite and engage with newness.

So we’re not doomed to march to time’s relentless beat. Our sense of time is weird and pliable — stretching, compressing, and seemingly coming to a standstill. And we can mould our perception of time, to some extent. In other words, we can slow down time.

How to slow down time: Don’t have fun?

But if time is supposed to constrict when you’re doing something routine, then why does time seem to drag so slowly when you’re not having fun?

The answer lies in how time feels different as you’re experiencing it versus how you remember it.

According to researchers Dinah Avni-Babad and Ilana Ritov, routine frees up brainpower instead of fully engaging it with new information. “The automatic nature of the routine leaves attentional resources for monitoring time (the watched pot effect),” they write.

If you’ve ever worked a routine job — or actually watched a pot while waiting for water to boil — you’re intimately familiar with the watched-pot effect, where time seems to unfold at a fraction of the speed of regular time. However, changing that routine and time will seem to move faster.

“A watched pot never seems to boil, but go and check your emails and it will be boiling over before you know it,” says Claudia Hammond, author of Time Warped: Unlocking the Mysteries of Time Perception.

In contrast, remembering how long something took is “a constructive process involving recall of change points,” according to Avni-Babad and Ritov.

Those memory anchors of new knowledge, experiences, and events are what shape how time passes around you, which explains why time seems to speed up when we’re doing something new or interesting, such as when we’re on vacation.

Hammond calls this the “holiday paradox.”

When we’re enjoying ourselves, time feels like it moves much faster than when we’re bored or anxious, but when we look back at a vacation, our assessment of time is based not on how many hours we actually spent on vacation, but on the individual new memories we created during that period.

Essentially, when we’re doing the same old thing every day, we don’t create many new memories. But on vacation, we create numerous ones because everything we’re experiencing is new. And when we look back on that period later, time will seem to have lasted much longer because of that newness.

So while the idiom may be “Time flies when you’re having fun,” luckily, when it comes to slowing your perception of time, there are better methods than simply not enjoying yourself.

How to really slow down time: 4 tips

The quest to slow time can lead to a richer, more meaningful existence.

The way you spend your time influences how you perceive it, so the choices you make now affect how you’ll manage your time later. Here are four ways to make your days richer and more memorable so that your sense of time expands and life doesn’t pass you by.

 

1. Fill Your Time with New Experiences to Counteract Routine.

As we touched on previously, routine and a lack of new experiences are what make time appear to speed by, so it makes sense that the key to slowing down time lies in introducing novelty into our daily lives.

It’s not a new concept. In fact, psychologist William James wrote about the phenomenon of time perception in his Principles of Psychology in 1890.

James identified how the automatic nature of routines means that learning isn’t really taking place over a century before Dinah Avni-Babad and Ilana Ritov tested this phenomenon.

In experiments examining the perception of time in routine versus nonroutine situations, the researchers found that people remembered the duration of familiar circumstances as being shorter.

In one study, participants had to count how many times underlined numbers appeared in each row of a list of numbers and then estimate how long the task took. For the “routine” group, the underlined number was always 5, while it varied for the “non-routine” group.

Even in these simple, nearly identical tasks, the slightest novelty provided by a mix of underlined numbers rather than 5’s expanded the nonroutine group’s duration estimate.

“Unless people experience major changes that break the routine in their lives and provide them with anchors to retrieve from memory, life can become one short, timeless sequence of routine inaction,” Avni-Babad and Ritov write.

So, to slow down time and combat the effect of routine, fill your days with new experiences and knowledge to form accessible memory anchors.

Accept challenges, learn new skills, and ask questions. Take a trip or change up your environment by trying a new restaurant or coffee shop.

Embrace your inner child and go exploring. Simply step outside the norm.

You’ll find that life stops passing you by so quickly when you stop underlining the same fives every day.

The present moment is where time can be slowed and cherished. You can Do a Time and Motion Study If you really want to make a meaningful change in your life.

 

2. Make Meaningful Progress.

Context also makes a difference in how you perceive time because it influences what you remember. Essentially, the relevance of events can determine whether time tends more toward squishiness or stretchiness.

A 2006 study led by Gal Zauberman, from the Wharton School, provides a good example of how this works.

In this experiment, participants estimated how many months had passed since the date of certain news events, such as Barack Obama’s presidential bid announcement, Britney Spears’s head-shaving, and Anna Nicole Smith’s death. Participants also had to rate whether these target events triggered subsequent developments.

The result? People underestimated the passage of time by about three months.

But if people felt that certain events triggered a greater number of subsequent events, they believed that more time had passed. Related events act as memory anchors, stretching out your sense of time, while unrelated events don’t have this effect.

So if you’d been paying close attention to Obama’s first presidential campaign but didn’t follow the many public trials and tribulations of Britney Spears, you would’ve thought that more time had passed since the bid announcement — even though the two events took place within a week of each other.

Making related memories and building upon knowledge, then, can help expand time. What does that mean for you?

To slow down time, fill it with meaningful progress.

The wistfulness and disappointment you feel when life seems to speed past arise because you’re noticing the passage of yet another anniversary or birthday, but you haven’t really made any strides on the things you’ve wanted to do.

The counterintuitive lesson from Zauberman’s research is that time seems to pass by quicker because you didn’t take action. So, the trick to slowing down time? Simply increase your productivity, and make progress on projects and goals.

Making and recognizing progress not only builds up intrinsic motivation but also prevents you from slipping into the hollowness of automatic, forgettable routines.

When you think about how you first started learning a new language or working toward a goal, like getting in shape, it seems like forever ago because you’ve made a lot of progress. There were lots of memorable milestones along the way.

3. Practice mindfulness.

There’s been a lot of talk about mindfulness in recent years, and it’s often discussed in terms of meditation. But if you’re interested in slowing down time, you don’t necessarily have to start meditating. You simply need to become more mindful.

Mindfulness essentially means that your brain is wholly focused on the task at hand. You’re fully present, aware of where you are and what you’re doing, and not overwhelmed by what’s happening around you.

That might sound easy enough, but when was the last time you were fully engrossed in only one activity? As you read this, are you also eating lunch or assembling a to-do list?

When you’re driving, do you find your train of thought meandering far beyond the road before you? If you’re like most people, multitasking is a way of life. Mindfulness is the opposite.

When you’re fully engrossed in what you’re doing, when you notice the little things you may take for granted, such as the feel of your shoes as you walk, it changes the brain and can have a positive effect on the body as a whole. Studies have found that mindfulness meditation prevents the thinning of the frontal cortex.

In fact, a Harvard Medical School study found that participants in an eight-week mindfulness-based stress-reduction program experienced changes in the concentration of gray matter areas in the brain responsible for learning, memory, and emotion regulation.

Mindfulness has been linked to major health improvements in everything from irritable bowel syndrome and psoriasis to depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

But what does practicing mindfulness mean for our perception of time? It’s essentially the tool we can use at any time to press pause, take stock of where we are, and notice both ourselves and our world.

If you’re new to mindfulness and aren’t ready to dive into meditation just yet, try the 54321 method, a common sensory-awareness grounding exercise. Here’s all you have to do:

1. Name five things you can see.
2. Name four things you can touch.
3. Name three things you can hear.
4. Name two things you can smell.
5. Name one thing you can taste.

After completing this exercise, you should feel calmer, more grounded, and, hopefully, more mindful.

“The more engaged we are with our experience, the longer it lasts,” writes Dr. Diana Raab. “In other words, time slows down if we pay attention because we tend to notice more.

4. Start journaling to practice reflection

The idea of journaling may evoke memories of scribbling in a diary during middle school, but journaling can be anything you want it to be: a stream-of-consciousness flow of thoughts or simply a daily gratitude list.

Regardless of how you journal, the benefits of taking time to reflect on your day are numerous — and they can help you slow down time.

“Journaling lets you to really dig into your thoughts,” writes blogger Ryan Reeves.

“Journaling allows you to slow down and reflect which is key for personal growth. It will truly stop you from just going through the motions of life.”

In addition to making you more mindful, there’s also scientific evidence that journaling has other benefits.

It boosts memory and communication skills, and studies have also found that consistently writing in a journal leads to a stronger immune system, better sleep, more self-confidence, and even a higher I.Q.

Not sure how to get started? Check out these journaling prompts for self-reflection and self-discovery.

If journaling isn’t for you, you can also reap the same time-slowing benefits by reflecting on life in other ways, whether by talking through experiences with a trusted friend or pausing to look through photographs and tapping into the emotions of past events.

“One other way [to slow down time] and recall the details of experiences is to share them with others — verbally, in writing, or through photographs,” writes Dr.Raab.

Live life slowly

When you make a habit of inviting new experiences into your life, take time to celebrate your progress, practice mindfulness, and give yourself time to reflect, you’ll create a succession of memories to look back on when you think about the passage of time. You’ll no longer feel left behind.

Though you might feel like you have less and less time, don’t mourn the fact that life’s passing you by. Instead, be proactive by spending your time thoughtfully and creating new memories.

Fill your life with new experiences and all sizes of milestones, and you’ll find that you’re marching, ambling, and skipping to a slower, richer beat. Essentially, you’ve learned how to slow down time.

Every Indian is my brother

Barisha Youth Convention

National Youth Day:

Why is Swami Vivekananda’s birthday celebrated as National Youth Day in India? Let me tell you the reason. The fight for Indian independence began in 1857, much before Swamiji’s birth. We had many great leaders who lead this fight against the British. Each of those leaders had a vision for India’s future. Most of them believed that India could rise again through political means. Swamiji, on the other hand, believed differently. He believed that regeneration of India depended on raising up the whole man. This could happen only if religion was activated. Once a reporter in London asked Swamiji, “Have you given any attention to the Indian National Congress movement?” He answered, “I cannot claim to have given much; my work is in another part of the field.” Then the reporter asked, “Is India conscious of the awakening that you allude to?” Swamiji replied, “Perfectly conscious. The world perhaps sees it chiefly in the Congress movement and in the field of social reform; but the awakening is quite as real in religion, though it works more silently.”[1] And Swamiji believed that this awakening would be spearheaded by the youth. Later on, upon his return to India, a reporter of the Madras Times asked him, “What do you intend doing for the regeneration of India?” Among other things, Swamiji replied, “My faith is in the younger generation, the modern generation, out of them will come my workers. They will work out the whole problem, like lions. I have formulated the idea and have given my life to it.”[2]

So, while everyone believed that armed resistance, or political struggle would regenerate India, Swami Vivekananda alone believed that the youth of India would “work out the whole problem, like lions.” Since he put his entire faith in the youth of India, his birthday has righty been called National Youth Day.

Note his words: “My faith is in the younger generation, the modern generation, out of them will come my workers. They will work out the whole problem, like lions. I have formulated the idea and have given my life to it.” He says that from among the youth, that is, our generation, will come the workers. What will they do? They will work out the whole problem that has beset India. So, we will have to work out India’s problems. Do we even understand what problems beset India today? How can we work out solutions to India’s problems if we don’t even understand what her problems are? Then he says that he has already formulated the idea on which this solution will be based. Our generation, and the future generations will understand it and work it out.

We shall try to understand these words of Swamiji in this article. Before we enter into our main discussion, I wish to tell you about an interesting incident that happened a few years ago.

Mantra diksha:

An industrialist of Kolkata approached me once and expressed his desire to take Mantra Diksha from our Ramakrishna Order of monks. We have a standard procedure for the same. Our Most Rev President Mj or one of the five Vice-President Mjs give Mantra Diksha. Each of them has a monk who acts as their secretary. One who wishes to take Mantra Diksha approaches this Secretary Mj and forms are filled up and an interview is done and the date and venue for Diksha is fixed. This is the procedure. So, I told him that I will fix him an appointment with the Secretary Mj to Most Rev President Mj. He then put a condition to me. He said that he wished to take Mantra Diksha only from a monk who belonged to the line of Swamiji.

God’s redeeming power flows down through a definite process called Apostolic succession or Guru Parampara. In the Roman Catholic Church and in their Eastern Orthodox Church, every spiritual leader in their tradition today can trace back his Guru Parampara back to Jesus Christ through one of Christ’s direct disciples. The Pope can trace it back to St Peter. Similarly, among the Muslims. Furfura Sherrif or Ajmer Sherrif, for instance, can trace back their Guru Parampara directly back to Prophet Mohammad. In the Ramakrishna Order, the origin of the Guru Parampara is Sri Ramakrishna. He gave Mantra Diksha to Holy Mother, Swamiji, Swami Brahmananda, and other direct disciples. They all, in turn, gave Mantra Diksha to their disciples, and so on. Thus, every Sangha Guru who gives Mantra Diksha today can trace his Guru Parampara to Sri Ramakrishna, but through Holy Mother, or Swamiji, or Swami Brahmananda, etc. Now, this industrialist wanted Diksha from someone in Swamiji’s Guru Parampara. I said I will find out.

When I did some background work, I was shocked to find out that there is no Guru Parampara from Swamiji at all! Everyone who gives Mantra Diksha today belongs to the Guru Parampara originating either from Holy Mother, or Swami Brahmananda, or Swami Shivananda, or Swami Saradananda, or Swami Vijnanananda only. There is no Guru Parampara from Swamiji! It is not that Swamiji did not give Mantra Diksha. Swami Shuddhananda, Swami Bodhananda, Swami Ashokananda, Sister Nivedita, and some more were his disciples. But those lines have all dried up. I was disturbed when I found this out. The greatest disciple of Sri Ramakrishna does not have a Guru Parampara today. This was deeply disturbing to me.

I approached a very senior and revered monk at Belur Math and asked him why this was so. He told me something amazing. He quoted Swami Turiyananda who said, “Swamiji used to tell us, ‘Do you think I only lecture? I know I give them something solid, and they know they receive something solid.’ Oh, the tremendous effect of it! Swami Abhedananda said that while listening to Swamiji’s lecture, he felt as if some force was drawing the Kundalini up, as at the time of meditation. Just see! Oh, what a power, Sri Ramakrishna left for the world in Swamiji! Hasn’t he changed the very thought-current of the world?”

It is in this light that we can make sense of Swamiji’s own words recorded by Priya Nath Sinha, where Swamiji is on record saying that he had given Mantra Diksha to a few thousand people in America and England.[3]

Every lecture that Swamiji gave was nothing less than Mantra Diksha. For reasons, best known only to him, he did not want a Guru Parampara in his line. All the spiritual power that he inherited from his Guru, he gave directly to the masses – in USA, UK, and in India.[4] Swamiji had a stenographer called Goodwin with him, who noted down every word he uttered during his lectures. Swamiji himself wrote detailed letters to many, a good number of which have been preserved. In one such letter, he himself writes: “I only tell you this, that whoever reads this letter will imbibe my spirit!”[5] Spiritual persons of Swamiji’s caliber can infuse spiritual power into any channel they wish. For instance, Swamiji says in the same letter: “Whoever will be ready to serve him – no, not him but his children – the poor and the downtrodden, the sinful and the afflicted, down to the very worm – who will be ready to serve these, in them he will manifest himself. Through their tongue the Goddess of Learning Herself will speak, and the Divine Mother – the Embodiment of all Power – will enthrone Herself in their hearts.” [6]

I made this digression from our main topic to establish that statements made by Swami Vivekananda are not ordinary statements, but veritable Mantras. We have to approach them with that attitude.

Vartamaan Bharat: Modern India

In March, 1899, when Swami Trigunatitananda started the Bengali magazine ‘Udbodhan’, Swamiji contributed an article called ‘Vartamaan Bharat’. It was translated as ‘Modern India’. This is a masterly article on the history of this great country from time immemorial till the present day. Swamiji ends that article with an amazing passage which has later been called ‘Swadesh Mantra’.

The title for this article is taken from one statement in this Swadesh Mantra.

Swamiji writes: “Every Indian is my brother: Thou brave one, be bold, take courage, be proud that thou art an Indian, and proudly proclaim, ‘I am an Indian, every Indian is my brother.’ Say, ‘The ignorant Indian, the poor and destitute Indian, the Brahmin Indian, the Pariah Indian, is my brother.’ Thou, too, clad with but a rag round thy loins proudly proclaim at the top of thy voice: ‘The Indian is my brother, the Indian is my life, India’s gods and goddesses are my God.’”[7]

In Bengali, the exact word that Swamiji had used was ‘Bharatvaasi’, which literally means ‘one who resides in Bharat or India. Hence the translation makes it ‘Indian’. Who all reside in India? People of various religions, various castes, various races, various ethnicities, various languages. There is enormous variety among the people living in India. And how are we to look upon all of them? As our own brothers.

Note that Swamiji does not put any conditions here. Only those who can trace back their ancestors to the seven Rishis (the Sapta-Rishis) are our brothers; or only those who follow religions that took birth in India are my brothers; or only those who have been Hindus all along and have not converted themselves into any other religion are my brothers; or only those whose language belongs to the Indo-Aryan stock are my brother; etc. No conditions whatsoever. Swamiji is very clear about this. Anybody, if he lives inside India, and considers India as his motherland, no matter what other identity he has – religion, language, race, caste, ethnicity – will be considered as my brother.

I wish to raise a hypothetical question here. Swamiji was a Hindu monk. And he was proud of it. He could easily have written ‘Every Hindu is my brother…’ Nobody would have considered it as wrong. Yet, he chose to dictate ‘Proclaim boldly…every Indian is my brother…’ This ought to make us think.

Religion, Violence & Politics:

Religion has caused immense bloodshed in the history of mankind. Man can kill his own species, due to religious reasons. This is almost unique to human beings. Violence is not new in this world. In the world of animals, birds, plants and all living beings, violence is common. But the causes of violence among all living beings, except humans, are: food and nutrition, territoriality, resource optimization, reproduction, and survival. Innumerable species kill other species for food and nutrition. Some birds and animals are territorial and this can lead to violence among members of same species. Some living beings such as praying mantis and spiders exhibit sexual cannibalism where the mate is killed and eaten. When resources become scarce, some animals kill their own young ones and cannibalize them. Thus, we see that violence is neither new nor unique to human beings. But what is really unique to human beings is that man can kill another man purely for ideological reasons! Just because a man does not believe the same things that I do, I can legitimately kill him! This is stupid.

Karen Armstrong has written an amazing book called ‘Fields of blood – religions & the history of violence’. She documents the violence that has been unleashed in the name of religion throughout known history. At last, she concludes that although religion seems to be the immediate cause of much violence and bloodshed, religion is never the real cause. It has always been politics.

Swamiji said the same thing: “Now, in my little experience I have collected this knowledge — that for all the devilry that religion is, blamed with, religion is not at all in fault: no religion ever persecuted men, no religion ever burnt witches, no religion ever did any of these things. What then incited people to do these things? Politics, but never religion; and if such politics takes the name of religion whose fault is that?” [8]

Today we constantly hear in our country that very soon Hindus will become a minority in India and that Muslims will out-populate Hindus in India. We ought to be able to think about such things by ourselves too, instead of just becoming victims of fake news over social media. When did the 1^st Christians come to India? Or the 1^st Muslims come to India? Christians came to India within 25 years of Jesus Christ’s death. That means, Christians have been here in our midst for over 2000 years! Muslims came to India even when Prophet Mohammad was alive! That means, for the last 1400 years, Muslims have been living in India. How come they did not over-take Hindus all these centuries and in the next 20-30 years, they will do so? This argument doesn’t make sense. But it is a very useful political tool for drumming up public anger and anxiety.

Man killing other men is brutish behavior, whatever the cause. Swamiji defines religion as the idea that raises the brute unto man, and a man unto God.[9] If man behaves like a brute and says that it is religion that is making him behave so, we ought to know that it is not religion, it can never be religion. For, religion is always the idea that raises a brute unto man and a man unto God. Hence, we ought to start teaching our young kids this mantra ‘Every Indian is my brother’. Hindu kids, Muslim kids, Christian kids, Sardar kids, Jain kids, tribal kids – everyone should be taught this mantra. The younger the kids, the better. When the kids grow up, they will invariably learn the exclusive ideas filling up this world. But, if they have been inoculated with this redeeming mantra, they will work out the problem easily.

It is always the persons with vested interest in every religion that causes the problem. But, if the kids have been vaccinated with this mantra from their childhood, the vested interests won’t succeed in driving men to kill one another.

The Hitopadesha has a wonderful story illustrating the dynamics of the vested interests.

There was once a lion which stuck a friendship with a bull. It is said that the powerful can relate with the powerful. So a thick friendship grew between the lion and the bull. The jackal observed this and smelled danger for his own self-interest in this friendship. One day, it approached the lion and with a heavy voice said, “Lord of the Jungle, these days you seem to have no time for old friends like me.”

Lion: That’s not true.

Jackal: Oh yes, my Lord. Your uneven friendship with the Bull has grown very deep. Oh, I feel for you, my Lord!

Lion: Feel for me? What the hell for? The Bull is a good fellow. He understands me & I understand him. What is wrong with our friendship?

Jackal: O my Lord, don’t you ever stop & ask yourself why he befriended you? Has any Bull ever befriended a Lion, ever?

The Lion felt some truth in these words of the jackal and asked, “What do you think is the reason he befriended me?”

Jackal: Ah! Now you are reasoning like you always have, my Lord. I have friends that live in the Jungle borders where the Bull also lives. I have confidential information that every day before & after meeting you, the Bull sharpens his horns! And I also have confirmed information that one of these days, he plans to rip open your soft under-belly with his super-sharp horns. Oh! The pain I felt in my heart when I heard this!

Lion: Bosh & stuff! Who told you such nonsense?

Jackal: My Lord, just observe him from afar when he approaches you. His eyes will be red, burning with anger against you. But when he approaches you, he controls himself and appears normal. He is just biding his time. One day when he finds you tired, he will complete his nefarious plans! Oh! Will I have to live to see that day too!!

Saying this, the jackal went away. He went to the borders of the Jungle and sought out the Bull. Approaching the Bull, he said, “Friend, tsk, tsk! I pity you.”

Bull: And why would you do that?

Jackal: you know very well that I am an old confidante of the Lion. Don’t I know his mind? Ah! Pity your sorry existence, my friend!

Bull: What are you blabbering? Be clear, puny creature!

Jackal: Well, your friendship with the King of the Jungle; don’t you think it is a bit odd? Have you ever heard of such an unnatural thing? Don’t you yet realize the motive behind the Lion’s befriending you? He is a born carnivore. He plans to one day jump at your jugular, kill you and eat your healthy flesh. Ah! My fate! How many yet such scenes have I to see?!

Bull: Bosh & stuff! Who told you such nonsense?

Jackal: My friend, just observe him from afar when you approach him. His eyes will be red, burning with anger against you. But when you approach him, he controls himself and appears normal. He is just biding his time. One day when he finds you tired, he will complete his nefarious plans! Oh! Even discussing it pains me!!

Saying this, the jackal went away & hid himself at a vantage point where he could see the place where the Bull daily met the Lion.

That day, when the Bull approached the Lion, he strained his eyes to see if the Lion’s eyes were really red as the jackal had said it would be. Similarly, the Lion too was straining its eyes to see the same in the Bull. Both found something changed in each other’s demeanour. The seed of doubt had grown to gigantic proportions by the time the two strong animals had come near each other. The Lion sprang on the Bull. The Bull drove its horns into the Lion’s belly while the lion had already sunk its teeth into the Bull’s jugular. Both lay dead on the ground. The jackal brought its brood and feasted on the two dead animals for a month.

How to brothers behave?

Swamiji’s mantra dictates us to look upon every person living in India as my own brother. How will we behave towards one another when we really look upon one another as real brothers?

A rich man had two sons. Before he died, he divided his land between them equally. As time passed, one brother got married and raised a family. The other remained unmarried. Both had the same amount of land and hence both got the same amount of crop every year. The unmarried brother thought, “I am single. My brother on the other hand has a wife and a kid to feed. But we get the same amount of crop. This seems unfair to me. Let me secretly transfer half of my harvest to his granary.” Thinking so, he secretly shifted half of his harvest to his married brother’s store. Nobody knew about this. some days later, the married brother thought, “I have a beautiful son. He will grow up and feed me and care for me. My brother on the other hand is single. Who will look after him in his old age? We both receive the same amount of crop. That seems unfair to me. Let me secretly transfer half of my harvest to his granary. Slowly he will build up a surplus which will help him later on.” Thinking so, he secretly transferred half his harvest to his unmarried brother’s granary. After some days, when both brothers went to their respective granaries, they were surprised to see that the quantity of crop had remained unchanged!

A small girl had developed some serious illness which required blood transfusion. She had a younger brother who could give her the blood. The doctor called the young boy to him and told him about his sister’s sickness and that she could survive only if he gave her his blood. The boy thought for a second and then agreed. So, both the brother and the sister were kept on adjacent beds and the blood transfusion was done. When the tubes were removed, the young boy looked at the doctor and asked, “When will I die, doctor?”

Father Bruno was a great Christian monk. One evening he was about to pray. It was the rainy season. A frog in the nearby pond was making a huge ruckus with its incessant croaking. Father Bruno could not pray in that noise. He went out, found out the frog, and drove it away. Silence descended. He came back and started praying with concentration. He heard the Lord’s voice. The Lord said, “Bruno, you didn’t do right. That frog was also praying to me.” This story I got from the book ‘Prayer of the Frog’ by Father Antony De Mello. For including such stories in his books, Father De Mello was excommunicated from the Catholic Church! That is the reason we should immediately start teaching this Swadesh Mantra to our kids as soon as early.

In the Old Testament of the Bible, there is a beautiful story. Abraham had a habit of inviting a homeless beggar everyday when he sat for his meal. He practiced this for years. One day, he brought a beggar for lunch. Both sat at the table. Food was served. Abraham closed his eyes for prayer before eating. When he opened his eyes, he found that the ravenous beggar had already started eating. He was livid with anger. He threw that beggar out in the middle of the lunch. He resumed his eating. He heard the Lord’s voice. The Lord said, “Abraham, you didn’t do the right thing by throwing our that hungry beggar.” Abraham said, “But Lord, shouldn’t he thank you for the food he received?” The Lord said, “That man has been living on earth for the last forty years. Not once has he remembered me, even by mistake. I don’t have a problem with that. Why should you be troubled?”

In the Rig Veda, we have an amazing mantra, which was taught to every boy and girl in this country. The society that was created as a result used to contribute 25% of the world’s GDP.

Mitrasyaaham chakshushaa sarvaani rupaani sameekshe;

Mitrasya chakshushaa sameekshaamahe.

May I look upon all beings with the eyes of a friend. May all look upon me with the eyes of a friend. How do you look upon a friend? Supposing you are sitting somewhere. Suddenly you see your friend come your way. How do you react? Wont you be extremely happy? Or would you have thoughts such as ‘I must beat him; I must cut his throat”?

I once read a beautiful story in a book on Mother Teresa. She had heard this story and used to tell people she would meet. An old man was sitting with some kids and telling them stories. He asked them a question: “How do you tell when the night has ended and the day has begun?” The kids gave many answers. “When you see an animal from some distance and can tell whether it is a cow or a horse.” “When you look at a tree from some distance and can tell if it is a neem tree or mango tree.” Etc. The old man was not satisfied with any of those answers. When the kids pressed him for the right answer, the old man said, “When you look into the face of any man and recognize your brother in him; when you look into the face of a woman and recognize in her your sister. If you cannot do this, no matter what time it is, it is still night!”

It is most important that we start teaching our kids in our country this powerful Mantra given by Swamiji – All Indians are my brothers. That is the only hope we have from preventing our society from imploding on its own hate and violence.

********************

---

[1] Complete Works: Vol-5: Interviews: India & England

[2] Complete Works: Vol-5: Interviews: The missionary work of the first Hindu Sannyasin to the West & his plan of regeneration of India (Madras Times, February, 1897)

[3] Complete Works: Vol-5: Conversations & Dialogues: X: by Priya Nath Sinha: Once I went to see Swamiji while he was staying in Calcutta at the house of the late Balaram Basu. After a long conversation about Japan and America, I asked him, “Well, Swamiji, how many disciples have you in the West?” Swamiji: A good many. Q) Two or three thousand? Swamiji: Maybe more than that. Q) Are they all initiated by you with Mantras? Swamiji: Yes. Q) Did you give them permission to utter Pranava (Om)? Swamiji: Yes. Q) How did you, Maharaj? They say that the Shudras have no right to Pranava, and none has except the Brahmins. Moreover, the Westerners are Mlechchhas, not even Shudras. Swamiji: How do you know that those whom I have initiated are not Brahmins?

[4] Is it possible to distribute spiritual power like this, directly to masses, without going through a succession of disciples? It is indeed possible. History has many instances, in all religions. Brother Lawrence distributed his spiritual power through his letters and conversations. Buddha did not opt for apostolic succession but distributed his immense spiritual power through his organization called ‘Sangha’. Mirabai did so through her songs, just as many other saints did.

[5] Complete Works: Vol-6: Epistles – 2^nd Series: to brother-disciples at Alambazar monastery in 1894

[6] Ibid

[7] Complete Works: Vol-4: Translations: Prose: Modern India (Translated from a Bengali contribution to Udbodhan, March 1899)

[8] Complete Works: Vol-4: Lectures & Discourses: The Great Teachers of the World (Delivered at the Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, California, February 3, 1900)

[9] Complete Works: Vol-5: Sayings & Utterances: Religion is the idea which is raising the brute unto man, and man unto God.

What is a successful life?

Definition of success:

It is very difficult to give a universal definition of success. Although everyone will have his own idea of what constitutes a successful life, it is almost impossible to have a common conception of what constitutes a successful life.

Success differs from person to person. For a student, getting a State rank or a gold medal or a PhD from the University could be success. Making a lot of money in life, is certainly one of the most common conceptions of success. So also, is the conception of becoming famous or powerful in society. There could be many other ideas of success such as becoming a leader, developing expertise in any field, achieving academic development & glory, leading a happy married life, falling in love. For a rare few, it may even constitute becoming a monk, realizing God, or achieving Samadhi.

So, we understand that it is very easy to ask ‘what is a successful life?’ But it is very difficult to give a general, universal answer. This is because, each person can have his or her own conception of success in life. It is not possible for everyone to have a common conception of success.

Moreover, we must note one important point here. Take for example, money. Many people will tell you that if one has money, one should be considered successful. Now, who doesn’t have money? Even a beggar on the road has some money! Or take fame. Every one of us is known and respected in some circle or the other. There are at least a few people in whose presence I am famous. So, we must understand that all these parameters that we have for success are actually hierarchical. Compared to many people, I am really famous. But there are lakhs of people who are more famous than me. There are many people, compared to whom, I have a lot of money. But again, lakhs of people have more money than me. So, when we specify success in life against any of these parameters, we must note that we always speak of the higher realms, the higher achievements only.

Morality & Success:

Supposing a man has earned a huge amount of money. But he has earned it through unethical means. Now, he will not be considered successful, even though he has enormous amounts of money. For instance, Harshad Mehta (of the Stock Exchange scam) or Partha Chatterjee (the Minister in the teachers’ recruitment scam). In fact, this problem goes so far as to make people feel that in this society, one cannot amass huge wealth by ethical means at all. Thus, the ultra-rich must have somewhere compromised on their morals! This is a common belief today.

Similarly, take Pandit Ravishankar’s case.[1] He made Indian classical music famous all over the world. He is certainly considered a success by most people. However, there are some who consider him utterly selfish and ruthless. He learned music under Ustad Allaudin Khan, who had a daughter Roshanara Khan. Ravishankar fell in love with this girl. She was 14 and he was 21 when they got married. She converted to Hinduism for this marriage and took the name Annapurna Devi. She was a gifted Sitar and Surbahar player herself. She accompanied Ravishankar in his public concerts, where she started outshining him with her virtuosity. He started becoming jealous of her rising fame. In order to save their marriage, she vowed never to appear in public performances again. A great sacrifice lay behind Pandit Ravishankar’s rise to fame. Is this, therefore, a success at all?

In fact, when we study the lives of most successful people, we find dark stories of such betrayals, sacrifices, compromises with morals and ethics. Today, people have come to believe that any successful person must have compromised his morals somewhere, at some time, in order to achieve his fame and success. There are many quotable quotes on the internet where famous people openly said that success calls for aggression and ruthlessness. When we extend this deliberation to the lives of organizations, companies and corporations, we find the same thing rising up again and again. Many prestigious organizations are seen to have risen over the fortunes of voiceless communities and with significant damage to the environment.

Nevertheless, there do exist innumerable instances where people have protected those around them and have yet achieved incredible success. We need to study those persons who have achieved lot of success, but without compromising on ethics. We are concerned about such cases in our study here. We will see later on how Vedanta solves this problem of morality and success.

Some generalizations about success:

This brings us to a stage where we can draw a few generalized conclusions regarding success in life.

Whatever be the field of human endeavor we consider, success refers to the highest possible achievement in that field. So, if we consider a student’s life, success refers to obtaining the highest possible marks, the gold medal, in a course. This is also called ‘Excellence’. So, we can safely conclude that achieving excellence in any field can be considered as becoming successful in life. The best in any field will be considered successful in this world.

It follows from what we have seen till now that success is not confined to any particular field. Success is not monopolized by any one particular field. Any field of human endeavor can be a platform for a successful life.

Again, from what we have seen till now, it follows that, generally speaking, success cannot be considered as a final destination, but only as a milestone. Take the example of a student. When he is in Class-X, which is an important examination in a student’s life, getting the State Rank is considered as a success. Suppose he obtains a State Rank. Is that final? No. He now enters High School, with another important public exam in Class-XII. Let us suppose he obtains a State Rank in Class-XII too. Again, that is indeed a great success. But is that final? Can that boy be considered to have lived a successful life? Not yet. He now enters a graduation course in the University. And so on. It is possible to define success at every stage of a person’s life. But no such success can be considered as final success. Yet another stage always awaits the person where he has to excel, where he can excel. Thus, stage after stage, a person can keep on doing excellently. Past success does not necessarily mean that he will succeed in the future.

So, there is eternal hope for everyone. Supposing a person obtained very mediocre marks in his Class-X exams. He will not be considered as a successful student. But there is always a possibility that the same student will ace his Class-XII exams, or get a gold medal in his UG course. Hence the Vedantic dictum: “Therefore, be not afraid. The infinite strength of the world is yours. Let us be brave. Awake, arise, and stop not till the goal is reached! Drive out the superstition that has covered your minds. The goal may be distant, but awake, arise, and stop not till the goal is reached.” [2]

Joy & Success:

Joy and happiness are associated with success. At every stage, the higher the achievement, the greater the joy a person will experience.

This opens up a new problem for us. Joy is momentary. And it is highly subjective. Studies have shown that the joy felt by a sportsman who got the 3^rd prize is greater than the joy felt by a sportsman who got the 2^nd position! This is obvious. The 3^rd position guy could have missed getting a medal. The 2^nd position guy could have gotten the 1^st position, but didn’t!

Similarly, the psychological phenomenon of Hedonic adaptation renders any success to impart eternal joy to a person. Suppose you consider getting a seat in an IIT or IIM or an Ivy League college as success. You work hard and do get a seat. Tremendous joy comes in its wake. Then you start attending classes in your dream college. The joy fades. The past achievement does not continue to give you happiness at present. This phenomenon is called Hedonic adaptation. So, success has to be a series of achievements of the higher order. So, the problem os associating joy and happiness with success is that joy and happiness arising out of any achievement in this world is never permanent. Future developments, following the achievement, always erode the joy and happiness, leaving us with an empty feeling!

Religion & Success:

This brings us to the topic of religion. All religions claim that they have the secret to an activity that will give you eternal joy. In the popular form of all religions, that activity is conformance to a set of rules derived from a Prophet and the joy is experienced post-mortem. In the fringe movements of all religions, that activity is a set of personal attitudes and practices that control the mind and human energies, and the eternal joy can be experienced right here, right now.

Any discussion on success or a successful life will ultimately bring us to religion from another angle too. We have seen that any consideration of success is associated with work, with action. If you keep still, no success comes your way. Nobody is born a success. Everyone who was or is or will be successful, has had to work for it. Now, a man may have achieved excellence in his own field and may have come to be seen as a great success by those around him. However, within his own mind, he may consider himself a failure. Paul Dirac was one of the founders of Quantum Mechanics. He discovered an equation (called the Dirac’s equation) which integrated Quantum Mechanics with Special theory of Relativity, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize when he was a mere 31 years old. He went on to live a long and fruitful life, holding prestigious positions in many Universities all over the world. His contributions to Mathematics and Physics are legendary and have helped shape our present understand of how the universe functions. Dirac was an acclaimed genius and a truly successful man. Now, towards the end of his life (he died in 1984) he was interviewed by a French Physicist Pierre Raymond, where he said, “I have nothing to talk about. My life was been a failure.” [3]

Can success be assessed by a third party at all? This question arises. But, all declarations of success come from outside us. This is the general norm in society. So, ultimately, success is intensely personal, subjective. Most declarations of a person being successful come from other peoples’ estimation of a person’s life and achievements. But, ultimately, one’s own assessment of one’s life is entirely subjective. Thus, considerations of success finally enter the realm of religion.

Self-control & Success:

Let us now study success in a more detailed manner.

We have established by now that the higher achievements in any field of human endeavor is considered as success. Thus, we have examples of successful persons in every field of human interest – music, sports, science, technology, politics, medicine, religion, etc. What is human excellence? There are so many flautists in the world. The best of the present flautists is Hariprasad Chaurasia. What signifies his success? His control over his breath. One of the greatest cricketers today is Mahendra Dhoni. His success comes from his control of his hands, legs and eyes. Messi is among the greatest footballers of today. His control over his legs gives him his success. Einstein is considered one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. His success comes from his control of his reasoning and imagining faculties. Rabindranath Tagore is considered the greatest poets of recent times. His success come from his control of his ability to imagine and articulate.

So, control seems to be a central aspect of success. Control over any one of the faculties we have, over any one of the organs we have, brings us extremely high levels of excellence, which is considered as success. And this control can be nurtured.

Swami Vivekananda says, “Take up one idea. Make that one idea your whole life. That is the only secret of success in life.” The method for developing very high levels of self-control of any of our faculties is this – total dedication to our field of interest. All other distractions must be removed from our life. Swami Trigunatitananda, a brother-monk of Swamiji started a Bengali magazine called ‘Udbodhan’. Swamiji advised him, “Let this magazine be your God.” Just observe the psychology behind this advice. Whatever we consider as God attracts our entire attention. There is no attention left for any other thing. The work we do at present, if it is considered as our God, will attract all our energies, all our attention. That work is bound to reach the heights of excellence. That is, therefore, the secret of success.

Vedanta & the means to achieve success:

According to Vedanta, man is conceived as a conduit to infinite living energy or Prana. It is this very Prana that is also called Atman by Vedanta. A person is seen as a coiled-up spring of infinite energy. Each soul is potentially powerful. All the strength a person needs is already within him. One must learn how to tap it and then how to manifest it. Vedanta teaches us how to release that energy in the course of one’s life. The more one releases that energy, the more successful he becomes. This is the Vedantic conception of success.

When a man has tapped into this source of infinite power within himself, he can then direct that power of the Atman in any direction he wishes. Fundamentally, Vedanta recognizes three spheres of human life where this power of the Atman can be directed – the material sphere, the mental sphere, and the spiritual sphere. Swamiji says, “This infinite power of the spirit, brought to bear upon matter evolves material development, made to act upon thought evolves intellectuality, and made to act upon itself makes of man a God.”[4] Thus, Vedanta gives the most generalized conception of success. We saw before how every successful person had developed control over some faculty within himself. This conception explains it beautifully.

Diving deeper into Vedanta, we find the conception of the Ida, Pingala and the Sushumna. Ida and Pingala are two columns of nerve fibers in the spinal cord, carrying the sensory and motor nerves in every person. These two sets of nerve fibers are active in all human beings and accounts for all known human activities, including thought. Sushumna is the 3^rd set of nerve fibers, where the nerves are extremely subtle, almost invisible. It is possible to activate this set of nerves and direct the Prana to flow through them. This possibility exists in all human beings. When bits and pieces of Prana start flowing through the Sushumna, we encounter excellence in the human being. When the majority of Prana flows through the Sushumna, the man experiences Samadhi and becomes aware of his true nature as Atman.

Normal activity happens when Prana moves through Ida and Pingala. Activities leading to excellence in any field happens when Prana flows through Sushumna.

How do we make the Prana flow through the Sushumna? That is the question at the heart of success.

Purity is the primary condition. Purity means concentration. One-pointed devotion to the activity at hand is called Purity. As Swamiji puts it so beautifully, “Take up one idea. Make that one idea your life – think of it, dream of it, live on that idea. Let the brain, muscles, nerves, every part of your body, be full of that idea, and just leave every other idea alone. This is the way to success….”[5] Notice there are actually two conditions here: dedicating our attention to one idea; and removing all distractions. This is what Sri Krishna means by the two terms ‘Abhyasa’ and ‘Vairagya’. Repeated concentration of our energies, to the exclusion of all distractions, directs the flow of Prana through the Sushumna. This is the mechanism of achieving success according to Vedanta.

Swamiji says: “Every successful man must have behind him somewhere tremendous integrity, tremendous sincerity, and that is the cause of his signal success in life. He may not have been perfectly unselfish; yet he was tending towards it. If he had been perfectly unselfish, his would have been as great a success as that of the Buddha or of the Christ. The degree of unselfishness marks the degree of success everywhere.”[6] Thus, the Vedantic conception of success resolves the problem of morality.

Vedanta delineates the inner process of achieving success, as described above. The same process leads to success in this world as well as in the spiritual realm. The process is the same. That is the reason, in ancient India, any person who achieves signal success in any field was called a Rishi. It is not just the spiritual giants who were called Rishis. Even people who achieved excellence in mundane fields were called Rishis.

As Sister Nivedita puts it so beautifully: “If the many and the One be indeed the same Reality, then it is not all modes of worship alone, but equally all modes of work, all modes of struggle, all modes of creation, which are paths of realization. No distinction, henceforth, between sacred and secular. To labor is to pray. To conquer is to renounce. Life is itself religion. To have and to hold is as stern a trust as to quit and to avoid. This is the realization which makes Vivekananda the great preacher of Karma, not as divorced from, but as expressing Jnana and Bhakti. To him, the workshop, the study, the farmyard, and the field are as true and fit scenes for the meeting of God with man as the cell of the monk or the door of the temple. To him, there is no difference between service of man and worship of God, between manliness and faith, between true righteousness and spirituality. All his words, from one point of view, read as a commentary upon this central conviction. ‘Art, science, and religion’, he said once, ‘are but three different ways of expressing a single truth. But in order to understand this we must have the theory of Advaita.’”[7]

This is a very important idea. Sincerity, integrity, honesty, purity are all virtues that are indispensable for success in spiritual life. But, in the mundane life, success can be pursued as an end in itself, disregarding all moral virtues. Moreover, we have come to believe that success in spiritual life requires a fixed set of time-tested practices, while brute force alone is enough for material success. Vedanta clarifies that all success, material or spiritual, has to be built on a common platform of virtues. We will end by referring to an interesting incident from the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna.

In the chapter, ‘Advice to householders’, on August 13^th 1882, we find the following entry:

The Master was highly pleased with the ustad’s music. He said to the musician, “There is a special manifestation of God’s power in a man who has any outstanding gift, such as proficiency in music.”^[8]

Let us try to understand what Sri Ramakrishna is saying here. If we understand that, we will be able to understand what Swamiji meant by saying ‘Education is the manifestation of perfection already within man.’

Let us also look at another entry in the Gospel on 24^th May 1884. The chapter is ‘Advice to an Actor’. A special worship of Kali had been performed in the temple the previous night. In connection with the worship, a theatrical performance of the Vidyasundar ^[9] had been staged in the natmandir. The Master had watched a part of it that morning. The actors came to his room to pay him their respects. The Master, in a happy mood, became engaged in conversation with a fair complexioned young man who had taken the part of Vidya and played his part very well. Master (to the actor): “Your acting was very good. If a person excels in singing, music, dancing, or any other art, he can also quickly realize God provided he strives sincerely. Just as you practice much in order to sing, dance, and play on instruments, so one should practice the art of fixing the mind on God. One should practice regularly such disciplines as worship, Japa, and meditation.”^[10]

Sri Ramakrishna was entirely spiritual. Religion was everything for him. If any excellence is found anywhere, in any person, in any field, he was concerned with utilizing it to spiritual ends. Hence, he points out that if any person excels in any art, he may divert that ability to excel into spiritual practice and reach spiritual benefits.

In the book ‘Enlightenment now’, Steven Pinker laments that today we have a situation all over the world where we are unable to conceive of a higher purpose in anything other than religion. Ancient India had however discovered the secret of success applicable to any field of human interest, religion being just one among them.

In the Chandogya Upanishad, we have a wonderful mantra that explains the secret of success as follows: Yad eva vidyaya karoti, Shraddhaya, Upanishada, tad eva viryavattaram bhavati. Work that is done with knowledge, faith and the Upanishad (i.e. meditation on the deities) produces more powerful fruit. [11] Our Rishis wanted to know why some actions of ours become fruitful while some don’t. while most civilizations attributed success and failure entirely to the will of God, our Rishis studied how human action functions and discovered this amazing secret. Whatever be the work we do, we must know the process of doing it efficiently. Haphazard work is wasteful work. Trial and error won’t do. Study the process of doing the work. Then do it. Next, we need Shraddha in what we do. Before we begin the work itself, we harbor feelings such as ‘what is the use of doing this work?’ or ‘this is a drudge, but I have to do it anyway’, or ‘everyone gets to enjoy life while I have to slog’. This small feeling will ensure the failure of our work. Shraddha is vital for the success of any work. We may know the exact process of the work, but if we lack Shraddha in the work or in the outcome of the work, failure is guaranteed. The last ingredient for success in any work is meditation. Acharya Shankara explains that ‘Upanishada’ here means ‘meditation on the deities.’ Who are these deities? Ancient India entertained a worldview which saw this whole world being governed by various deities. Thus, every work was at the mercy of some deity. Success in that work depended to a large extent on the grace of that deity. Today, we do not subscribe to that worldview. Today, this word ‘Upanishada’ means ‘silence of the mind.’ That word also has this meaning, which in the present context makes perfect sense. A disturbed, restless mind is bound to perform at sub-par levels of efficiency. A calm, silent, focused mind has a better chance at bringing out the desired result. Thus, work that is done with deep knowhow, faith in the efficacy of the process and the outcome, and with a calm mind arising out of meditation produces success.

********************

---

[1] Cf: Entry on ‘Annapurna Devi’ on Wikipedia

[2]Complete Works: Vol-1: Lectures & Discourses: The Gita-III

Also Cf: Complete Works: Vol-2: JnanaYoga: Ch-II: The Real Nature of Man

[3] Cf: Dirac’s legacy: Simply Dirac: Pressbooks.pub

[4]Complete Works: Vol-4: Writings: Prose: Reply to The Madras Address

[5] Complete Works: Vol-1: Raja-Yoga: Ch-VI: Pratyahara & Dharana

[6] Complete Works: Vol-5: Notes from Lectures & Discourses: On Karma Yoga

[7] Complete Works: Our Master & his message

[8]The Gospel: Advice to householders:  August 13, 1882

[9] Vidyasundar is a romantic poem of medieval Bangla literature based on the love between Vidya and Sundar. The poem draws heavily on an 11^th century Sanskrit poem by Bilhana called Chaurapanchasika. Bharat Chandra Ray dramatized this poem. The plot is: The beautiful and accomplished prince Sundar obtained a boon to marry the beautiful and scholarly princess Vidya by pleasing Mother Kali through his devotion. Sundar then reaches the kingdom of Vidya along with a parrot given to him by Mother Kali. He pleases the princess with love letters and paintings sent through the flower girl of the palace and they fall in love. Sundar then enters into the bedroom of Vidya through a tunnel and has sexual intercourse with her. But when Vidya becomes pregnant, her father becomes furious. The angry king then sentences Sundar to death by impaling. Sundar, however, saves his life by pleasing Mother Kali and marries Vidya.

We have given this detail just to show that the drama was not entirely spiritual in its content, and yet Sri Ramakrishna made the amazing observation in its connection!

[10]Advice to an Actor: Gospel: Saturday, May 24, 1884

[11] Ch. Up: 1:1:10

Vivekananda Festival

London : 14^th September 2025

I am very happy to be participating in the Vivekananda Festival at The Mahatma Gandhi Hall in London organized by The Vivekananda Human Center. The theme of this festival is: Human excellence, Unity in diversity, Universal tolerance, Harmony & peace. This theme has been distilled from the message of Swami Vivekananda. The message of Swami Vivekananda is gaining importance with each passing day.

If we were to ask ourselves, ‘What is the central message of Swamiji for us?’, what would be the answer? Let us try to understand this directly from Swamiji’s words.

He once said, “My ideal indeed can be put into a few words and that is: to preach unto mankind their divinity, and how to make it manifest in every movement of life.” [1] There isn’t much to talk about in religion. The essence of religion is the truth that each soul is potentially divine. This faith has to be awakened in every individual that exists, from the most exalted to the most brutish. Once this faith is awakened, the individual will then start discovering ways of bringing that potential divinity into reality in one’s own life. There are four broad ways in which man can go about manifesting this divinity in one’s own life. Each of those four ways is called ‘Yoga’, and refers to the four main faculties that all men and women possess – thinking, willing, feeling, and intuiting. Anything that helps us in this manifestation is moral. Anything that keeps that inner divinity potential and obstructs its manifestation is immoral. Swamiji said, “The old religions said that he was an atheist who did not believe in God. The new religion says that he is the atheist who does not believe in himself. But it is not selfish faith because the Vedanta, again, is the doctrine of oneness. It means faith in all, because you are all. Love for yourselves means love for all, love for animals, love for everything, for you are all one. It is the great faith which will make the world better.”[2] Henceforth, “He is an atheist who does not believe in himself.”[3]

Swamiji once said to Sister Nivedita: “The older I grow, the more everything seems to me to lie in manliness. This is my new gospel.” [4] Let us believe in our infinite potentialities. Let us also believe in the infinite potentialities of everyone around us. This belief will bring about miracles in our lives. Modern world makes enormous demands on man. At every turn of life, man is beset with unsurmountable problems and obstacles. The only remedy for this situation is to infuse strength into modern man. Hence this new gospel is given by Swamiji for us. Swamiji said: “The history of the world is the history of a few men who had faith in themselves. That faith calls out the divinity within. You can do anything. You fail only when you do not strive sufficiently to manifest infinite power. As soon as a man or a nation loses faith, death comes[5]…All power is within you; you can do anything and everything. Believe in that, do not believe that you are weak; do not believe that you are half-crazy lunatics, as most of us do nowadays. You can do anything and everything without even the guidance of anyone. All power is there. Stand up and express the divinity within you.” [6]

It is an interesting term Swamiji uses – do not believe that you are half-crazy lunatics, as most of us do nowadays. Does anybody really believe that he or she is a half-crazy lunatic, as Swamiji asserts here? As long as man believes not in himself, he is indeed a lunatic. As long as a man believes he is weak and helpless and needs somebody else’s help and approval, he is indeed a lunatic. As long as man entertains absurd conceptions of God and of God’s love for mankind, he is indeed a lunatic. Manliness means the opposite of all these things. I am divine. So is everyone else in this world. God does not hate anyone, no matter what. God’s love is unconditional. These attitudes and belief constitute manliness.

Hence, elaborating this central paradigm of manliness, Swamiji said: “Let us be no more the worshipers of creeds or sects with small limited notions of God, but see Him in everything in the universe.” [7] It is almost impossible for man to begin by seeing God everywhere. Therefore, Swamiji said: “The ideal of man is to see God in everything. But if you cannot see Him in everything, see Him in one thing, in that thing which you like best, and then see Him in another. So, on you can go. There is infinite life before the soul. Take your time and you will achieve your end.” [8] The technical term for this is ‘Ishta’. Religion begins with a Guru, no matter what religion we believe in. In some religions, we believe in a succession of the Guru power, and in some others like Islam, we believe that the original prophet is the only Guru. But, in every religion, true spirituality begins with a disciple accepting a Guru, a human being who is so pure that there is hardly anything human in him or her except for the form. The Guru is divinity manifest in all its glory. As Swamiji puts it beautifully, “The Guru is the bright mask which God wears in order to come to us. As we look steadily on, gradually the mask falls off and God is revealed.” [9]

Elaborating further on his central message to the world, Swamiji forcefully says, “The only God to worship is the human soul in the human body. Of course, all animals are temples too, but man is the highest, the Taj Mahal of temples. If I cannot worship in that, no other temple will be of any advantage.” [10] This is the context in which Swamiji said that we have to forget all ideas of helping other, and elevate it to serving others and worshipping others. Swamiji puts it very bluntly when he says: “Do not stand on a high pedestal and take five cents in your hand and say, ‘Here, my poor man,’ but be grateful that the poor man is there, so that by making a gift to him you are able to help yourself. It is not the receiver that is blessed, but it is the giver. Be thankful that you are allowed to exercise your power of benevolence and mercy in the world, and thus become pure and perfect.” [11]

Swamiji says poignantly that religion is never a matter of belief in creeds and dogmas, but it is a matter of growth. He said: “Religion is a growth. Each one must experience it himself.” [12] With a little thought, it will be clear that unless we start seeing religion in Swamiji’s light, religions of the world will continue to be a source of discord and dissent, instead of being a blessing on mankind. He says: “We should never try to be guardians of mankind, or to stand on a pedestal as saints reforming sinners. Let us rather purify ourselves, and the result must be that in so doing we shall help others.” [13] From what we have seen till now, it is clear that true individual growth is the crux of religion. But, is this a new religion that Swamiji is proposing? Not at all.

Swamiji clarifies his position by saying: “We want to lead mankind to the place where there is neither the Vedas, nor the Bible, nor the Koran; yet this has to be done by harmonizing the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran. Mankind ought to be taught that religions are but the varied expressions of THE RELIGION, which is Oneness, so that each may choose that path that suits him best.” [14]

***********************

Swami Jnanalokananda

Secretary

Swami Vivekananda’s Ancestral House

Kolkata

---

[1] Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda: Vol-7: Epistles-3^rd Series: to Sister Nivedita: 7^th June, 1896

[2] Complete Works: Vol-2: Practical Vedanta & other lectures: Practical Vedanta – Part I

[3] Complete Works of Sister Nivedita: Vol-1: Master as I saw him: Ch-II: Half-way across the world

[4] Ibid

[5] Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda: Vol-8: Notes of Class Talks & Lectures: Jnana & Karma

[6] Complete Works: Vol-3: Lectures from Colombo to Almora: The work before us

[7] Complete Works: Vol-1: Lectures & Discourses: What is Religion?

[8] Complete Works: Vol-2: Jnana Yoga: Ch-VII: God in everything

[9] Complete Works: Vol-8: Lectures & Discourses: Discipleship

[10] Complete Works: Vol-2: Practical Vedanta & other lectures: Practical Vedanta: Part-II

[11] Complete Works: Vol-1: Karma Yoga: Ch-V: We help ourselves, not the world

[12] Complete Works: Vol-6: Notes of Class Talks & Lectures: Spirit & Nature

[13] Complete Works: Vol-8: Lectures & Discourses: Discourses on Jnana Yoga: Part-VI

[14] Complete Works: Vol-6: Epistles – 2^nd Series: Written to Mohammed Sarfaraz Husain on 10^th June, 1898

Unlock the Power of Silence: Why Less Talking Equals More Clarity

If you’re facilitating meetings, remember that silence is not bad.

Do you know how long it takes the average person to feel uncomfortable with silence?

Four seconds.

That’s what three Dutch researchers found back in 2010. Four seconds was enough to “make one feel distressed, afraid, hurt, and rejected.”

Many inexperienced communicators and leaders rush to fill those awkward silences with something — anything—to make themselves feel less uncomfortable.

Remember, silence is not a bad thing. Silence is the noise thinking makes.

After reading about this four-second threshold years ago, I began to court the limits of my discomfort and embrace silence. As a learning & development (L&D) director, I’ve now gotten to practice the skill of silence hundreds of times in the virtual meetings and trainings I facilitate.

My colleagues now joke that I love awkward silences and can sit in them for longer than anyone else. And they’re not wrong.

I use the opportunity to take a sip of water, think about what I’m going to say next, and look at the faces on my Zoom screen to try to read their emotions. The silence is a gift.

The Benefits of Silence

I’ve learned that silence offers numerous benefits, including the following:

1. Silence offers necessary space for people to think.

“Silence is a great canvas for your thoughts. That vacuum helps turn all of your inputs into output. That lack of interruption helps you flow.” -Derek Sivers

Many times, I’ve had to stop myself from breaking the awkward silence — only to be pleasantly surprised a few seconds later when someone shares a fresh insight I had never considered. Those extra few seconds can be the difference between a bad idea and a good idea.

If you’re discussing a complex topic, people need time to think. But too often (especially at work), we don’t give people that necessary time.

By holding a few more seconds of silence, you can unlock better insights in those around you. Remember, silence is not a bad thing. Silence is the noise thinking makes.

• In virtual meetings, silence allows attendees to unmute their mics.

“An expert on speaking also knows when not to.” -Archimedes

How many times have you been on a virtual call and noticed that someone unmuted their mic right as the facilitator began talking again?

Unfortunately, I see that happen all the time, and it’s a signal that the group probably just missed out on a key insight just because the facilitator couldn’t wait long enough.

Whenever you lead a meeting, try to mentally account for the fact that it takes people at least a few seconds to come up with what they want to say and another few seconds to unmute their mic (if it’s a virtual meeting). Rather than caving at the four-second mark like most mortals, challenge yourself to hold out for eight to ten seconds. If no one talks after ten seconds, they may truly have nothing to say.

• You can use the awkwardness of silence to your advantage.

“Silence is the ultimate weapon of power.” -Charles de Gaulle

Now that I know most people feel awkward after four seconds of silence, I use silence as a tool to get people to speak up. I can out-wait anyone, so if I’m facilitating a meeting, I let the silence work to my advantage until someone speaks up.

This often helps flush out ideas from people who don’t normally speak up — including some introverts who decide they’ll fill the void if no one else will.

How to Lean into Silence

These practical tips have helped me embrace silence as a meeting tool:

• As a facilitator, the language you use implies whether you expect people will speak up. Avoid prompts like “Does anyone have anything to say?” which indicate you’re unsure if anyone wants to speak up.
• Instead, imply that multiple people will want to share, like “Who wants to share their idea first?” or “Who has thoughts they want to share?” (Sales reps call this type of language “assuming the sale.”) That sets the expectation for the group, and people tend to live up to that expectation.
• When waiting for others to share, mute your mic. Doing so signals that you’re not planning to speak until others have spoken.
• Take a sip of your coffee or water. This type of action also subtly reinforces that you’re okay with waiting for a while.
• Call out the awkwardness. On calls, I often joke that I’m comfortable sitting in the discomfort. I tell people I’ll outwait them, and they know I mean it, so they speak up. You can do the same.

The next time you lead a discussion, tap into the power of silence. It will help unlock the group’s best ideas and encourage more people to speak up.

Silence is a superpower — if you know how to use it.

**********************