12 December 2001, 12:04am IST
RANJIT NAIR.
In times of rapid change with the emergence of a global economy, it is natural to look over one’s shoulder to the past for guidance. it is often asked whether our hoary philosophical traditions have any moral sustenance to offer in our contemporary predicament. the advaita vedanta, which is taken to be the acme of traditional indian philosophy is especially prone to such questioning. a thoughtful response must recognise that our understanding of advaita, or indeed for that matter any philosophy, is inevitably influenced by our current anxieties and preoccupations. there are, reputedly, two laws of philosophy. the first law states that, ‘for every philosopher there exists an equal and opposite philosopher’, while the second law asserts, ‘they’re both wrong’. the voice of advaita travels to us across millennia, from when the earliest coherent thoughts of man were being formulated. one has to strain hard to listen to a voice coming from so far away in time, from the childhood of humanity. for us adults the condition of childhood is one that we may be nostalgic about, but we would never for a moment grant that we have in the process of becoming mature, responsible human beings, lost out, not gained in wisdom. consider for instance, that magnificent fount of advaita, the brhadaranyaka upanisad. in the madhukanda, the sage yajnavalkya tells his wife maitreyi, ‘‘not for love of a husband is a husband dear, but for love of the self.... not for love of wealth is wealth dear, but for love of the self.... it is the self, dear maitreyi, that should be seen, heard, reflected upon and steadfastly regarded. knowing the self through seeing, hearing and reflection, the whole is known’’. the dialogue begins with the imminent apportioning of vittam, or wealth and it is categorically asserted that wealth has no value in itself, but only as a means to the attainment of the self, which is the highest end. in his commentary on this passage, the advaita philosopher samkara suggests that the vittanindavacana or disparagement of wealth — is part of the general doctrine that karma or action is no means to immortality. the idea of immortality may not be attractive or even plausible to everyone. the dehatmavadin, for whom the self is just the physical body, argues, ‘how can the body which is reduced to dust return?’ — bhasmibhutasya dehasya punaragamanam kutah, or in the latter-day version, which nobel laureate harry kroto says, ‘when you’ve had it, you’ve had it’. whether or not one believes in immortality, the message of the advaita texts is that in order to glimpse an aspect of reality in which alone the meaning of a human being is revealed, one must go beyond the causal realm. mortal we may be, but we do not, on that account, have to be terminally worldly. to stand back from samsara or the world, and to find the still small centre in the self — real, conscious and free — is held to be the highest wisdom. to deny or disown the freedom one has, on the other hand, is to be as good as dead. it is this enormously enabling insight, which refuses to be impressed by wealth or by the trappings of power, that has helped us chart our distinctive way in this world and indeed to hold out hope for the world. globalisation, markets and trade may seem irresistible mantras today. for advaita, however, they are in themselves mere instruments which have to be judged by the extent to which they contribute to human felicity. the bhagavad gita, which samkara describes as ‘the collection of the essence of all teachings of the vedas’ is a classic text on human action. in the bhagavad gita, lord krishna counsels arjuna that, ‘‘action should be situated in yoga and performed without attachment, and that yoga is skill in works’’. in his masterly commentary, samkara explains this ‘skill’ in the following terms: ‘that indeed is skilfulness which, through equanimity makes actions, that by their very nature bind, give up their nature’. to adapt this prescription to meet the challenge of globalisation, we are called upon to cultivate the ‘skill’ to negotiate our way in the treacherous world of the market, without becoming bound to something that by its very nature binds. perhaps this is how, in the brhadaranyaka upanisad, the philosopher yajnavalkya could nonchalantly combine with vittaninda the attitude that he exhibits in his reply to janaka’s question: ‘‘what brings you here, desire for cattle or for subtle disputation?’’. ‘‘for both, o emperor’’, was yajnavalkya’s telling response.
No comments:
Post a Comment