Comic strippish spirituality

When I saw the above comic strip in Hindustan Times of June 24, 2012, I could not but, despite being a confirmed atheist, thank God. It gave me a strong handle on how I should start this post that has been brewing in my mind for the past few weeks.

I recently finished reading a book Swami Chinmayananda Reader, edited by Anita Raina Thapan, published by Penguin (ISBN 0-14-400062-8). The constant theme and the perpetual response to potential queries on what has been propounded by Chinmayananda in the book is: Our scriptures comprising the Vedas, Vedanta, Bhagavad Gita (“…the Vedas, especially in the Bhagavad Gita”), Manu Smriti, the Advaita philosophy expounded by Sri Shankara, the acts and sayings of our rishis of yore – “the great seers of ancient India”, “the sages of the past” – are valid and beyond question in matters of spirituality and also, climbing a few steps down, secular and temporal.

How so? Because they say so. They need no external validation. Indeed, there can be none. The parallel with Calvin’s claims should hit anyone on his or her head.

With the above I start my substantive criticism of the book. First, I will take up Chinmayanda’s ambivalent attitude about science. Is he against science? It definitely feels that way. “The modern materialist who denounces religion and claims to be an atheist probably does not know that the superstructure of his scepticism is built upon the sands of eighteenth-century materialism.” So, there is really no need for skepticism, or more accurately, of the kind that cannot be trivially addressed by our scriptures.

The “biologist-prophet, Darwin, was the seer.” The contempt Chimayananda has for science, biology in particular, is more than evident in this phrase. In case you want another example: “The seers were not mere [my emphasis] scientists meddling with material equipment on an insignificant table in a corner of a laboratory.” “They were men of giant wisdom.” – for the simple reason they were not working on any table! If you wanted to know what is Vedantic philosophy you could do no better than read a subsequent sentence: “It is the sum total of their [the seers’] unanimous conclusions.” That is, science as we know it is no patch on the wisdom of the seers of the distant past. Nothing of any value has come from anywhere but from them.

Science in the modern age is “dehumanizing man through its technology.” But there are other types of science that are good. Could you please identify them? Chinmayananda is up to the task. Modern science begets “objective” scientists whereas the philosophers of India, of the ancient kind, are products of “subjective” science.

Some places in the book seem to want our scriptures and religion acknowledged as science; indeed there appears to be a craving. “Vedanta, being thoroughly scientific,” is one such phrase. “Hinduism [is] such a perfect and exact science of spirituality,” of course of the subjective kind. “[W]e can, through a scientific process of self-purification, grow in divine stature and dimension.” The science of Vedanta (“Vedantic science”) is mentioned and so also that of religion.

“The study of Vedanta insists on immediate understanding.” He who hesitates or entertains doubts is lost, that is. Now, given all of the above I can only conclude that subjective science is almost like the jealous and intolerant God of the Semitic religions – brooking no dissent and demanding implicit obedience. Why else the demand for “immediate understanding”?

As an aside, “To those who worship Me alone, thinking of no other” as it appears in Bhagavad Gita (IX:22) seems to have been taken from Ten Commandments’ injunction “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me!”  

Now, you would understand why I think that Chinmayananda is ambivalent about science. It is easier and indeed more scientific to think that we will all be better off without subjective science, subjective scientists and indeed subjective scientism (the claim that there is nothing beyond).

The next point I will take up is the preponderance of assertions – mere assertions – in Chinmayananda’s speeches and essays (the book is a compilation of a selection). They have no supporting statements, arguments except that they are sourced from our scriptures – Calvin again! I will give only a few, including some sentences that did not make sense to me (marked *):

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->That which is beyond the point at which the intellect gets stalled is G-O-D. (This easily falls prey to the God-of-gaps argument.)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->[O]ur … inquiry into the nature of the Creative Power in us cannot be complete unless we know the meaning of ‘life’. (I cannot understand why letting ‘life’ be a mere happenstance is so disquieting.)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->If the world was not there we could not have survived upon the surface of the globe for even a moment*

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Everything that exists, the entire world, is given to us as a gift from the Creator, the Lord. (This is the misplaced sentiment that gave man dominion over all things, as in the Bible.)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->The entire universe around us has come from Him, the cause. That cause is unachieved, ever pursued, pervading in all beings. (This deserves an asterisk, but I do want to get clarification from the readers – did you make sense out of this without a belief in the Creator?)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->[S]ome people have become worse than animals. This is what is now called technological development! (This is one of the starker examples of Chinmayananda’s aversion to science and technology.)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->If we act wisely, nature changes immediately and will be beneficial to us. (besides this being a statement of unspirituality – selfishness – it also gives me a lead into my next set of criticisms.)

Did you notice that the adjectives “wisely” and “immediately” are not defined? When do we know we have not acted wisely? If the asserted result does not come through it is because the vague and indeterminate modifier “wisely” was not satisfied.

“…developing a correct relationship between himself and the world outside”, “If nature is approached with the right attitude, we can get things done by His grace and blessings”, “This is how true religion can really generate human values.” Just to take the last piece, any accusation that a religion, any religion, has not generated human values, the ready response is, “It is not a true religion!” As easy as that.

“[F]rom time to time an ancient philosophy needs an intelligent reinterpretation in the context of the new times,” says Chinmayananda. What is ever so strongly implied is that his interpretation is intelligent! Hope you get the point.

I have thought long and hard about the statement, “That which is changeless alone can be eternal.” My point is anything that does not change has no purchase on time, be it instantaneous or eternal. Then, to say that a changeless thing is eternal cannot carry any meaning, because being changeless is being beyond time (what does it mean to say that a thing is changeless at this instant?), and being eternal is a temporal measure that cannot be applied to it. Just a conundrum I thought I will throw at Chinmayananda or his successors.

I come to the last of the points I want to make in this post (there are many more that I am leaving out) and this criticism should be taken as being directed at Advaita Vedanta as sought to be explained in this book. The word “maya” is truly troublesome for any critic. For one thing, it appears magically, like the mirage in a desert. Or, should I say deus ex machina? It is imbued with omnipotence. The “world of perception” is created by maya. “If the world has an existence only as a reflection in the mind … [h]ow is it then that we constantly experience the world of objects as outside ourselves?” “It is because of maya.” The only thing maya does not do is butter the toast at my breakfast table – maya too finds it difficult, just as I do.

So, Swami Chinmayanada, you are Brahman and I am maya!

Now, I wish that Bill Watterson will create many more comic strips and expound on what Chinmayananda has said in his own inimitable style and through the mouth of Calvin or Hobbes (preferably the latter).

Raghuram Ekambaram