Indian Philosphy by Brahmasrii Dr K C Varadachari -11

Indian Philosphy
Brahmasrii Dr K C  Varadachari

He is the Acharya or the Guru. So much so, Kabir says that the name of God is Kabir, or for the matter of that it can be the name of any great Acharya or Guru in whom the Divine has manifested Himself in full knowledge. Thus the more general theory of Kabir synthesizes the view-points of the infinite Transcendent’s beneficence which is manifested by His central and full immanence in the hearts of all creatures who have given themselves up to Him. Man’s whole being must be offered up to God and man’s work lies in concentration upon the task of weaving the name of Hari constantly. Kabir true to his hereditary vocation as weaver says in his Bijak:
“Weave, weave the name of Hari on which gods, men and Munis are meditating. He stretched the warp and took the shuttle. The four Vedas are  
the wheel. One beam is Ram Narayan, fulfilling the purposed work.
He made the ocean of the world a trough; therein he kneads the starch. The body of starch is stiffened: few new it as starch.
Moon and Sun-the two are the treadle: in mid-ocean (light) the warp is made. As the Lord of the three words brushed on the starch Shyam joined the broken ends. He sets the pegs, and when he took the reed, then Rama was bound. As the reed beat up the warp, the three loks were bound. None he left free. The three loks were made one loom; the warp worked up and down. The eternal Purusa bade me sit beside him. Kabir entered into light”
(Sabad 64 trans. –Rev. Ahmed Shah)
In the above verse we can see the Agamas fourfold description of the Divine as the transcendent, as creator-source, as avatar, as the inner companion of the soul who watches over it and leads it by the path of light. Kabir wonderfully represents by means of the metaphor of weaver and the weaving the process of creation and liberation. Weaving is a wonderful  
profession so said Valluvar, the great author of the Kural, who also was a weaver by profession.
Kabir’s vision of the Absolute was that of the absolute immanence of God in all forms and yet no form exhausts Him. There is no doubt that God can be in all things even like the whole sky could be contained in the pupil of the eye. Says Kabir, “I saw a passage smaller than a needles eye. Therein I saw thousands of camels and elephants passing on their way”. This path is the path of inner vision, the vision of the Godhead in the heart is capable of being attained through the apparently trifling act of surrender, by speech of surrender by wearing the name of God always. Kabir entered a wider stream of consciousness when he began to proclaim that he was the Absolute himself even like the Vamadeva of the Upanishads. He was the seed of Brahma he said, the unbounded himself was he. Kabir was a siddha.
The knowledge of the transcendent nature of God alone is insufficient. The knowledge of the immanent nature of God alone is also insufficient. The two are not irreconcilable attributes of God. God is  
mahato mahiyan, anoroniyan and pervades all things both inside and outside, antar bahisca. Thus alone must God be contemplated upon. Else ignorance will persist, if not result. The Upanishad states that this dual realization will make one cross over death and attain the Immortal. Says Kabir. “The world will die. But I shall not die. I have got one giver of life. Infidels will die; saints will not die. They will fill and drink the immortal juice. If Hari dies, then I will die: if He does not die then now why should I die. Kabir says I fixed the mind in the mind: I became immortal and obtained the Ocean of Happiness”. The saints attain the supreme abode. Saints do not die. They only become flowers of the Divine, are gathered by the Divine for being worn eternally as ornament. The idea is not new. Pattanathar, a siddha, became a heap of flowers on dying. So too did Kabir become a heap of flowers when he passed away. The perfume of his realization spread over the face of Northern India. A new spirit was set afoot and steadily it became the most powerful influence towards communal accord in religious History. For Kabir was the Guru of Guru Nanak the founder of Sikhism. Both faiths claimed him. It is the nature of any  
universal message to cut across the frontiers of difference by penetrating down to the inner layer of individual being. “In every abode the light doth shine: it is you who are blind that cannot see. When by dint of looking and looking you at length can discern it, the veils of this world will be torn asunder. “The temple of God is a place at which all persons without any difference can worship. A living temple God is the teacher, the prophet and the seer. But he is not all. One should become born again of the flower one had become. So were the alvars, some of them. The world is a place of worship, a temple of the Lord. Says Kabir “By saying that Supreme Reality only dwells in the inner realm of spirit, we shame the outer world of matter and also when we say that he is only in the outside we do not speak the truth”. The world is not contradictory to God. The world and souls are organic to the Divine Lord.
Thus Kabir was conformity with the Bhagavata doctrine. The point of departure of the theory of Kabir from Ramanuja consists in the fact of refusal to recognize idolatry or the Arca-form. In this respect he  
shows his inclination to the Nirguna form, the truth of the Islamic tradition which has been consistently opposed to image worship of any kind. When reality is present why worship images? When we have the real mother before us why play with dolls of the mother? so asked St. Nammalvar and Tirumangai. This would be to take the representation for reality. This of course is not the meaning of the Arca-form of the Southern and the Agama Schools. But the refusal to recognize idol or icon worship was in tune with the spirit of Islam and was the meeting ground between the Hindu and Mohammedan conceptions of the deity. Thus Kabir reformed Hinduism and led the way for the emergence of a new phase of Hinduism in the North. He established Bhakti through surrender through repetition of Name as the means to realization. He showed the robust way towards the realization of the Divine even here and even in this body itself. He taught the four-fold truth of the nature of Godhead. He affirmed the reality of the process of divinization of Man, God’s nearness and accessibility and grace.
Modern Psychology has taken upon itself to analyse the complex sentiment of Religion. Professor William James in his classical work on the Varieties of Religious experience tried to establish psychological tests by which one could determine what constitutes religious experience.
We have to distinguish between religion as an institution and religious experience. The religious experience has been shown to be a kind of sense of the wonder and numinous and significant of the cosmic as against the individual and the sense-universe and so on. Many have followed this Jimsian track.
The Psycho-analysts headed by Freud have analyzed the religious experience and declared that it is
i. a craving for protection and power. The infant’s feeling of importance at the beginning gradually is given up and

thanks to this need to be helped and protected by the environment and is sought to be regained by increasing one’s own power either through the parents or some entity hypostatized.
ii. It is also seen to be an attempt to get control over the sensory world directly but when this is impossible by alternative means which are psychological.
iii. Religion itself is a great ‘Illusion’ as it posits the existence of a spiritual being who loves all – a father-complex or image erected into a higher reality. It is seen that God is a father surrogate’ and the brotherhood among all is another imitational pattern.

This Freudian analysis is really materialistic though nonetheless valuable. Religion satisfies in one sense man’s desire for knowledge and competes with science. As science advances perhaps we might give up the illusions of religion, as clothed in the myths etc., which could be psycho-analytically explained.
According to Jung who was much more concerned with the metaphysical analysis or meta-

psychology God is an archetype. All religions are different methods of stating the same idea of God as a symbol of the psychic energy which carries a tremendous load of libido. In fact this leads to the concept of the omnipotence of God. Though this archetypal libido operates through the unconscious almost everywhere yet it clear that it controls and directs all conscious life and movements everywhere almost in an identical manner. The universality of myths and dreams is an evidence of this singleness of God-libido.
If it is asked how far their studies helped clarification of religious experiences all that we can say is with Sri Aurobindo – they have been walking in the dim-lit worlds of the shadows.
Eric Fromm and others interested in the study of human nature proceeded to consider the religious aspect as part of human history. History has been the source of factual data even as the myths have been the source of factual data for Carl Jung. Fromm has transferred the ‘focal point from within the individual to the external objective conditions. The behaviour of

individuals is shaped accordingly by their society and the society is moulded by objective conditions. The environmental approach to the study of human and individual problems may be acclaimed as a major step forward for science (which objectifies and seeks objectification as the norm of understanding).
That we have not progressed very far in this methodology in respect of the proper understanding of religion is self-evident. If we think that religion could be understood in terms of the institutions of religion – the priest craft, the fire-altar constructions, the incantations, the prescribing of taboos and the adoption of totems, or even the formation of mystery cults, dances and music and so on, then a study in detail of all the religious institutions from the primitive to the higher religions would provide invaluable data. The Golden Bough and the other studies do provide a much needed data. But that is not the spirit of religion. These are exteriorizations or improvisations of the inward welling up of certain sentiments and ideations, which are in fact inseparable.

The religious institutions such as the Temple in India stand for a certain idea-the house of God. The Church is a place where one could pray alone and in company to that Highest Being who is everywhere. Here there is no icon (pratima) to give a visual representation of the invisible and omnipervasive being. The Mosque again resents the iconisation of God who is beyond all our sense-grasps. But what are the lower religions otherwise? May be they want a representation and idealization of the best and that which has helped them – or contrariwise that which has injured them and the feelings of guilt and fear and so on. The development of sacrifices – the most beastly and most bloody – have their source not so much in the sadistic impulse or some such libidinous impulse but in the need of give up oneself to the highest in all one’s parts, property etc. – and the quantification of the ‘giving away or up’ has led to ferocious dimensions. Religion depraved in this manner had to emphasize the quality rather than the quantity – the psychological as against the objective or external offering. The external charity is to be measured only by the internal charity – not vice versa. The pull towards externality however has not

even today ceased to operate. The Religion is not so much in grandeur of structures or rituals and sacrifices – festivals but in the ability of each individual to arrive at that direct experience of the Ultimate.
The religion of our temples has shown itself in the large formulation of the basic external symbolic form of the structure – its rising towers. It is usually said that the structure of the temple is based on the concept of correspondence between the human body and the house of God: But this would be to over-simplify the concept of the temple. The temple corresponds to the entire Universe – or creation which has grown round the central force which has constructed it. The central force of the temple is the innermost sanctum sanctorum – where the deity is installed. The several enclosures are said to represent the several sheaths – the ananda, vijnana, manas, prana and anna – five: some have seven prakaras – the symbol includes the three – fire, water and prithvi under anna. The towers (Gopuram) represent the ascending worlds – bhuh, bhuvah, svah – or seven adding the mahah, janah, tapas and satyam. So the symbolic nature of the temple seems to have been well-known to

the architects of the temples. There is bound to be large amount of spiritual heritage in this symbolic temple architecture.
The icons themselves are designed to represent the forces of the cosmic order which one would like to worship or invoke. The attempt to objectify the inward powers also held as cosmic powers has led to many speculations and innovations and inventions. There are large differences between the Hindu and the Mahayana myths and types of worship but when we penetrate behind them we have a substantial unity of symbol. It is so as in the case of Jaina temple psychology.
There is a large amount of agreement in the matter of the goals of the three religious movements, Hindu (Vaisnava, Saiva, Sakta), Buddhist and Jaina: the goal is liberation - the means are also similar – the necessity of total abnegation of world-values: the first emphasizes a life of disciplined God-dedicated renunciation and enjoyment: the second emphasizes the dharma-dedicated renounced life; the third emphasizes the total dedication to purification of oneself till the least particle of karma-matter (pudgala)

is thrown out and one becomes a jina – a free spirit without any bondage any longer.
Religion means more the discipline of one’s life – a discipline that exalts the virtues of dedication to the ultimate transcendental freedom and seeks within the lifetime given to man to direct all energies to that goal.
This is the psychology of religious transcendental idealism. It does not make renunciation and end in itself but as a means to the attainment of that union with the life of the Universe and beyond that. This does not mean any pessimism, It on the contrary means a great deal of optimism. Pessimism is the condition that develops when one feels that his goals or ideals cannot be realized at all. That this world cannot be the world in which the highest can be realized is for most a bare statement of fact. It is a law of nature itself. To seek immortality in the mortal world would be an idle dream if mortality is a law of this world. This might be denied and a philosophy of basic transformation of the world would or may entail the abrogation of the law of mortality. Some thinkers like

Sri Aurobindo hope for this. But this world would have become some other world.
Again it is not pessimism to affirm transcendence over this world alone will lead to absolute Bliss. The attempt to establish a kingdom of God on earth as it is in Heaven, would men the abolition of the earth itself. But that notwithstanding, the social modifications of the earth society or community so as to bring about a new set of codes of life or laws are not beyond the earth consciousness at all. The aim of a godly world – a religion-directed world had been attempted. The temple-centred cultures all over the world have shown certain definite cultural developments. They have greatly modified the minds of men, weaned them away from the pure instinct-driven lives or ritual conditioned consciousness. But the new habits of mind also tended to lose consciousness and conscience and this led to the woodenness of ritual mortality, religious mortality and myth mortality and symbolic mores.
The psychology of self-transcendence is understandable – though perhaps it would be meaningless if it means the giving up of oneself for the

sake of another – but this could be shown to be the newly discovered self of one: The basic religious sentiments are not static but dynamic revealing the great attractiveness of the ideals of Transcendence of the self. These ideals or goals are not immanent and cannot be discovered immanently. So much can be stated. The objective manifestations of religion are means and are symbolic. These symbols are in a sense universal and stand for objects of the spiritual mind not of the senses and even the ego-centered desires and needs.
It is in this that lies the secret differentium between the human ideals and the religions are transcendental ideals. In the modern world there is a tendency to claim that transcendental aspirations are also human and are the human whereas the immanental aspirations are lower than the human. This is due to the happy shifting of the co-ordinates of reference. But not all agree to this shifting. In a world of different levels of biological and moral development the psychic claims and aims are bound to the variant.

In the modern world what are the most important needs which could be called religious or spiritual?
1. It is claimed that Santi or Peace is the real goal of all people.
Peace or Santi is said to be granted by religious life. It comes about as a result of a contact with God in contemplation. It may come about in devotional practices. It is said to come about during the performance of good deeds.
The peace that passeth understanding, which noting can disturb is the gift of God or the Dharma.
What is behind this need for peace which this god-union can grant? We have to realize that Peace is the cessation of all activities – both the internal and the external or the quelling down of the movements of the mind which either is engaged with external objects or internal memory. This comes about through strenuous practice.
From having the peace of the individual we move towards peace outside in the world. Peace in the outer

world is something very different – it is the harmonizing of all diverse movements – bringing about the reign of law and order. The external conditions of the world have quite an effect on man’s life. Indeed most of man’s life is devoted to acting and reacting in the environment. Peace is something that does not happen. We have a negative definition of peace: peace is absence of war or conflict. It may mean absence of difference of opinion or ideals. People go searching for peace to all places of religion: they go from one sacred place to another; from one saint to another saint; this continuous movements for the sake of inward peace may be considered to be a phenomenon peculiarly Indian, for men do not go here for learning, for sight-seeing or for any other purpose but for the purpose of getting peace – santi. A certain quiet is got but it soon passes away. Is it the mind that is the cause of this restlessness? The ancient statement – mana eva Manusyanam karanam bandha moksayoh; the mind is the cause of both man’s bondage and liberation; bondage when it moves outward to objects of sense, liberation, in desisting from them. Mental peace is said to be arrived at by cultivating thoughtlessness or non-

ideation of any kind. Thus impressions of objects and their memories float constantly on the mind or rise and fall like waves in the mind- the two analogies implicit are that it is a background and that it is a sea or lake.
Peace of this kind is the usual thing that one gets or at least is said to be felt when one goes to sacred places or the sacredness of the place or person is judged by this test.
This linking up of man’s unhappiness or restlessness or non-peace with the mind is one important discovery.
This mind is said to operate through the sense – organs and the motor-organs and also of the pleasure and pain and memory of these impressions. Taken altogether with the eleven the mind is also engaged with the subtle sense-material (tanmatras) and the gross material substances both composing the body and the outer world. It is not necessary to make Mind an all creator but its activities are varied and integrating. One’s experience (ex-outer perience: knowledge) including the bodily ones are entirely governed or

assisted. No wonder the mind is over-worked and this develops what we call the three states of consciousness. The gross state or waking state or moving state consists of the total activities of the individual observable through the senses both of one’s own body and of the outer world. But the dream state has suspended all the outer motions – though it is clear that internal or subjective movements are not made but appear to have been made. Dreams seem to have all the activities which none observes but yet subjectively done – so to speak – all this is imagination. No wonder the philosophers who generalized on this dream consciousness have built up a universe of imagination – of mental creation. That these creations could be fantasy, hallucinatory and fairly described as psychotic constructions is well known. A man may be known for his internal nature by seeing or hearing his creation – mainly imaginative and artistic. Perhaps it would be necessary to see whether there are not layers of this dream consciousness – and here we must be grateful to the modern workers: Freud, Jung, Adler, Fromm and others, and even the great artists Blake, Joyce, Lawrence, Elliot and others. Perhaps it is in the

creative mind that is imagination the free flow of psychic energy expresses itself so to mould the given material of the waking consciousness. A fruitful study has been available on the work of S.T. Coleridge – The Road to Xanadu. There can be a great amount of psychic analysis on these writers taking them to be operating on the mind at this second level. The ancients called this level – taijasa-illuminating zone – not the dark zone but the luminous one not unmindful of the light this can throw on man’s personality. In one sense this zone of man reveals his astral personality, that personality which is said to transmigrate to the other bodies at rebirth. Whether we accept this point or not the fact seems to be that crux of man’s life is said to be discovered in his dreams or that illumined subjective condition which is dynamically constructive imagination.
True it is that the ancients held that one enjoys all his desires or their contraries in this zone of his daily life. Whether they are made by himself or by a higher than all – God – it is certain that there is an independence which disproves autonomy in the dream construction by oneself. However artists try to develop some amount of autonomy in their productions.

However this poetic movement of the mind in dream conditions is sought to be transcended since all these productions or objectifications of inner conflicts and hopes and the peace. Fulfillment of the inner life is held by some to be the condition of peace – they call this the positive peace and the other peace is said to be the peace of renunciation – negative peace. This positive peace of fulfillment seems to be a great attractive force and ideal. The great literatures are in fact attempts to gain this peace through fulfillment: so too the great sculptures and paintings which immortalise the mortal in stone and marble.
But the means adopted for this purpose seems to be definitely not what the Psycho-analytic schools call analysis of the Unconscious through dream or association or myth or some other kind of complex arising from physical or ability-defect. The annihilation of the mind-nirmamata – is also sought. In fact in Buddhist psychology this condition is arrived at in jhana of the Void, mindlessness, amanaska and so on.
Thus the value of the modern psychological or psycho-analytic treatment lies not in the ultimate

attainment of peace that religion aims at but at the lesser adjustment or adaptation to the cultural situation or environmental conditions etc. Perhaps it may be suggested that this mind-problem is essentially a human problem – for such conflicts are not available in animals etc. Whilst this might be the opinion of man it is held that they too in their own way have this difficulty at least at the greatest moments of crisis – of death through sudden conditions, like floods, typhoons, fires and so on. But let us not enter into that field firstly because of its patent obscurity and secondly because of its difficulty.
Man and his mind seem to be in this difficult station – his mind seems to bring about his distempers. The getting rid of mind seems to be the problem – its solution may lie in ever so many directions, through sexual orgy, wine or religion, which escapes from all the above, through penance and abstinence, perfect self-control and dhyana – meditation that seeks to serve the power of the mind over the self or man. These are powers used to check the movements of the mind, the movements which might even be imaginative creation and so on. Arts were looked down upon in religion at

the beginning: later arts subordinating themselves tried to please religion by expounding religious motifs and themes; in the end arts conquered religion; religion’s importance seemed to derive from art productions rather than art derive its power from religious experience. But since religious experience is the experience invisible or of the invisible etc., it had always to go beyond art.
If psychology considers that Art is not only a means of imaginative construction, it has also to take note of the fact that it is a psychical behaviour revealing the personality (or depersonality) or integration (or disintegration) of mind at the back of the process or mind in activity. Whether art can itself help in the overtification or externalization of the conflicts within the mind and manifest the inner repressions without being aware of their being repressed or without inhibition is a matter of great concern. Perhaps subtly most art is of this order and it performs a spontaneous function in restoring the normalcy of mental life – provided however it is not encouraged overmuch by neurotic audience or fans, who find in such exhibition their own repressed sentiments or complex getting an

expression. In this sense the neurotic art may well help therapy. But this is a real field for investigation. We find in the religious institution the festivals and other occasions the institutions and rituals as well as the other paraphernalia do go a long way to satisfy this liberation of the pent up psychic forces. All that religion does is to canalize the movements and whilst appearing to permit or freely express the inward unconscious cravings it subtly regulates the actual culmination. Thus it is that religious houses have been considered to be houses that restore peace of mind that permits a free expression of pent up grief’s, emotions the most urgent of dependence, of love, of sensual participation in idea and image, of repentance for sins so called, the lapses or possession by other spirits and so on. In fact the religious institutions are clearing houses not only of all dirt and disease of the mind but grant a sense of restoration of the balance that is the necessity between the three levels of consciousness – the waking the dream and the deep sleep. One finds oneself in a fourth state of liberated waking, dreaming and sleep.

The institution of Surrender to God in works, in knowledge and in devotion, called Bhara-Nyass or Prapatti, even like its similar Confession in Christianity is a significant process of opening out without any reservation. All that modern psychiatrists try to do is to create an impression of scientific opening up of the inward life with perhaps success in all those cases where religious impulses have lost grip. The truth is that confessions have been abused and trustworthiness of the priest or confessor has been questioned by the mind or else there is no real confessing possible.

Om Tat Sat

( My humble salutaions to Brahmasri Sreeman Dr K C Varadachari ji for the collection)


Post a Comment