Self-control,
resoluteness, volition are virtues from a moral point of view and they need a
strong ego. From spiritual point of view, dissolution of ego is required. Strengthening
and dissolution are at least prima-facie contradictory. Any proper Spirituology
has to un-tie this knot. Even for morality-proper, mere suppression of urges which
tend to tempt us away from the Duty, would not be a sufficient way out.
In any case
emotional self-management is a tricky affair and requires prudent therapies. Aiming
at desire-less-ness as a pre-condition for spiritual advancement and giving an
unqualified advice of effortful suppression as the only way to attain it, is
neither psychologically feasible nor even advisable for mental health. Geeta
seems to be trapped in such all pervasive preaching of effortful suppression.
However stand of
Geeta on this matter seems ambivalent and changing. As opposed to the
repressive agenda mentioned above, Geeta declares a sort of natural determinism.
It states that
“Even the
enlightened cannot behave otherwise than their individual-nature would allow.
As nature is in control of each and every living being, what self-control (Nigraha)
is going to achieve? (effort for self-control is always defeated)” (3.33)
On the other hand
Geeta concedes a position which is exactly opposite to this. This turn around
appears as
“No doubt, as you
(Arjuna) are saying, mind is indeed too difficult to be controlled by
self. However by practicing (Abhyaas) dis-interestedness (Vairagya)
you can control your mind.” (6.35).
‘Kama’ which
is one of the four recognized life-goals (Purusharthas), is at the same
time the ‘Gate number one to Hell (Narakdvar)’ and enemy number one in
six vices (Ripus=enemies) viz. Desire, Anger, Greed, Unruliness, Temptation and Envy.
Here we come to a
great stranglehold in Hindu Philosophy. All bodily desires, with special (but
non-exclusive) reference to Sex, are together called Kama i.e. Desire.
This blanket concept is very similar to famous Freudian Libido. In spiritual
progress Desire-less-ness is deemed as the decisive step. This has set in all
sorts of intellectual acrobatics.
Asceticism becomes
venerable but not practicable. Ascetics are adorned as deities as if it
compensates the worldly involvement of normal citizen. If sense of sin gets
attached to normal natural urges, it cultivates a morbid and hypocritical
culture. All duties become secondary to singular ‘duty’ of suppressing desires.
The indifference
towards worldly commitments is an ethical disaster. Agenda for healthy
self-management of urges is obscured behind the self-negating ideals. Re-orientation
of urges in a constructive manner by allowing them to act in a moderate way is
the real issue. Suppression (Dama) and Recession (Shama) are the
recognized ‘remedies’ but re-orientation and moderation are not given their due
consideration. Actually it would have been far better if instead of using
blanket concept of Desire, had they specified ‘indulgence’ separately from
Desire in general. Now we will see how Geeta too gets caught in the acrobatics.
“the three gates to Hell which destroy the
soul (it must be ‘self’ as pure witness is indestructible) are Desire, Anger and
Greed. Therefore renounce all of them.” (16.21)
Is it really
advisable to get rid of them completely? In fact all negative emotions do have
their functional need if they rise and fall timely with apt proportion. But
Geeta cuts off very possibility of management of emotion by proclaiming Desire
per se as evil.
“The moment an
object enters the consciousness, it will induce desire; anger is bound to
follow desire, anger will cause confusion and confusion in turn will cause
distortion of memory and with distortion of memory the destruction of that
being is inevitable” (2.62,63)
This is too
pessimistic and deterministic to provide a feasible remedy for it. Once
determinism is accepted, question of following or not following any advice is
eliminated. Geeta further emphasizes the
immense power of Kama. “Sensory faculties are transcendent to the body (and
hence are more difficult to control), mind is transcendent to faculties, intellect
is transcendent to mind, witness is transcendent to intellect.” (3.42)
However at another
juncture Geeta says
“Desire finds its
abode in faculties, mind and intellect. It mesmerizes them. This creates an
opaque envelop around the witness, disabling its cognitive power.” (3.40)
Question is; then
what remains with the living being that can overpower such a powerful ‘Desire’?
Again we are left with the only component of our being which is not included in
(3.40) viz. Ego (Ahankar)! It can rally around other urges in coalition,
against the urge that is to be suppressed, in a given situation. Ego is
analogous to State while all remaining being is analogous to society. Irony is
that spiritual accomplishment implies dissolution of Ego! Requirement of
overcoming Desire strengthens the Ego. No resolution of this irony is proposed
in Geeta except for Grace of God.
Actually Buddhist
method of ‘Vipashyna’; i.e. remaining aware of all activities of mind without
denouncing any of them but not getting engrossed in them, seems to be a
feasible (but no way easy) method. Yoga and meditation are mentioned in Geeta
but without much emphasis. Very strong emphasis is given to suppression.
Strangely Kama
in its explicitly sexual version also appears in Geeta (10.28) as Glory-Sign of
God as well, however with two conditions. One condition is that sex is
Glory-Sign if and only if it occurs with an intention of conception of progeny.
Another condition is that sex should not be in contravention to ‘sanctimonious
duty’ (Dharma). (7.11)
Niyoga is religiously sanctioned intercourse of
wife, with a properly selected candidate, other than her husband, for the sole
purpose of continuance of the lineage of the husband! (Don’t ask how it remains
lineage of husband.) This is also conditional. The condition is that neither
the wife nor the candidate should enjoy the act. (Don’t ask how this is physically
possible for at least the man and how to verify that he didn’t enjoy it.)
Geeta believes
that likes and dislikes are naturally determined by the pairs of a sensory faculty
and physical object specific to that faculty. (3.24) This is rather Physicalist. The joy of achieving
a goal is not physical sensory experience. Good news is not melodious in terms
of sound. It is, Culture, its conventions, its conditioning and context of the
situation that determine the pleasantness or unpleasantness of an experience.
Making prestige
issue out of a trivial matter has triggered lot many a wars including the one
in Mahabhaarat. Aggrandizement of Ego is much more of a Gate to hell
than Physical-Desire. Geeta remains oblivious to deeper human predicaments
due its Physicalist diagnosis of evil.
There are two
analogies regarding faculties running after their liked objects and the adept
is one who can forcefully withdraw them.
“As wind can cause, toppling and sinking of a
boat, faculties running after objects and mind following them, causes drowning
of true awareness, in a similar fashion.” (2.67).
Why should we not
take the analogy that wind can cause propelling the boat as in case of sails?
If the navigator knows when to unfurl the sails and when to tie them up, he can
use wind to his advantage. Similarly a good management of your desire can bring
about your enrichment too!
“As a tortoise can contract its limbs inside
the shell; the adept can contract his faculties away from their objects.” (2.58)
It must be noted
however that tortoise does not indiscriminately withdraw its limbs. It does so
in a situation of insecurity and walks with head out in normal circumstances.
Therefore not withdrawing faculties does not necessarily imply evil.
Interestingly,
fulfilling faculties by the objects intended for them is also called a sort of Yadnya
by Geeta, “(Some) offer objects to be devoured by faculties (is also a Yadnya)”—(4.26).
This also fits
well with “I am the hunger in your stomachs” — (15.14)
With all its
vehement appeals of withdrawal from ‘objects’ (Vishayas), Geeta has to
concede “Although the adept has stopped all the ‘consumption’ of objects, his
interest in them does not recede! It recedes only after he sees cosmic-soul in
him and gets the transcendent Joy.” (2.59)
But how can the
adept (with his super strong Ego, which can take the stress of non-consumption),
would realize the final accomplishment? This is a catch 22 situation.
In all the
discussion about faculties attracted towards objects, Geeta overlooks the
situation of repulsive experiences that one would tend to avoid but which are
necessary for performing the duty. If addictions are dangerous so are aversions!
Now let us see a
more puzzling stanza.
“Especially and
completely avoid the desires arising out of voluntary commitments (Sankalpas)
by surrounding all faculties by mind and controlling them.” --(6.24)
This is really
strange because generally one should stay firm with
the desires emerging out of voluntary commitments, rather than getting
distracted by stray desires, that may arise accidentally! This amounts to
avoiding voluntary commitments per se, which is impossible and not even advisable.
Why only
indulgent-type vices are counted but diffident-type are not?
This point is not
particularly applicable to Geeta alone but Pious Ascetic philosophies in India
generally have this one-sided bias. Vices such as indolence, cowardice, sycophancy,
escapism, fatalism which are ‘defensive type’ of vices are ignored and deleted from
the list of vices. Only aggressive types of vices are listed (Desire,
Anger, Greed, Unruliness, Temptation and Envy). This shows a class bias about
the preached.
The preaching
presumes that listener/follower is in a power position wherein he will be prone
to indulgent type of vices. But the preaching is spread in all classes. Telling
the poor, “You ought not to be greedy” or telling the weak “you ought not to be
unruly” appears mockery of the disadvantaged.
No comments:
Post a Comment