Interactive Session - Thinnai
Date: 7th February,
2005
Resource Person: Ram, Chief, SAMANVAYA
Participants:
Sri. Annamalai, Gandhi Study Centre;
Krishnan, Organic Harvest;
Shivshankar, Sofil;
Prasanna, Sornammal Education Trust;
Priya, Samanvaya
Introduction by Ram, Chief, Samanvaya
The immediate provocation for
taking up such a topic for discussion and understanding was the arrest
of the Kanchi seer. There were numerous different kinds of people taking
different stands. Trying to understand all the information and opinion
floating around, I could broadly classify it into 2 groups:-
1. looking at this episode in isolation, taken in by the political
drama and the furore all around
2. Trying to understand and answer the larger questions like
a. Is law a bigger institution
than religion or vice versa, and how do societies handle these issues?
b. What should be the
role of such institutions in societies?
Some of the opinions, or questions
to such questions were, professionals should manage such institutions,
the public should know everything about these institutions, how much
aid should these institutions be receiving, why should religious institutions
have so much wealth, why should a sannyasi have wealth, or even, how
should a sannyasi live his life. Now we won't even touch this last question
because I don't think any of us here are qualified to talk on this.
Thus the questions that have come up are largely on:-
- funds
- management
- their (ashrams') role in society, or the power / influence they have
in society
- the entire debate on religion and politics which has been a long-standing
one in India
What is tangible is the dilemma in
people when it comes to taking a stand. The media is a circus, and people
know that they cannot rely on the media for their information. People
are largely in confusion without any indication, or any information
as to how to respond to such issues. So, they have fallen back on their
ideologies or value systems, and reacted on the basis of this. The ideological
responses that have come up are:-
- the Hindutva view, that
this is an attack on Hinduism, and to convert people to christianity,
destroy all Hindu religious institutions and entities
- The communist and the leftist view that these things should run according
to the law, and so what if a religious leader is arrested?
- A view that goes to neither of these poles but stands somewhere in
the middle, looking for another option
It is obvious by now that it is the
third group which is the largest. Why is it that people are unable to
take a stand as to is it really right or wrong that that their religious
leader has been arrested, what should be done in such a situation, what
are the implications in society and how to respond?
Two primary reasons for
this:-
- The schools that we go through have conditioned us to a certain way
of knowledge and thought. But do we have in Hinduism today a method
of indoctrination, or passing on the knowledge system of Hinduism to
the next generation? Unlike Islam or Christianity which have definite
ways of doing this for the generations to come, Hinduism no longer does
this. It is no surprise that people are not able to respond, how much
do they know about such institutions really, that is sure knowledge?
- Some times the institutions start out with a different purpose, and
what we see today of some of them might be diluted versions of what
they started out with it.
So, maybe the starting point is an understanding of these institutions,
firstly even establishing that these are social institutions, that there
are so many ashrams and religious centres in India, and all of them
have followers. Any number of ashrams might spring up, but each of them
find followers, devotees. This in itself says that there is a need in
society. But then what is this need? And why is a large section of the
society unable to make up its mind, is left floundering without any
basis for understanding? If on the one side there is a certain uneasiness
about the entire issue and unwillingness to do anything because of the
lack of a clear view, on the other hand there is great hurry also in
jumping to solutions and activity just to do something.
Without all this, just to begin with an attempt to understand, we do
know that there is a certain knowledge these institutions retain in
society and that there is a need for this; and the current talk is all
about knowledge societies and institutions. If these (ashrams) are social
institutions, what is their knowledge contribution to society? What
is each one of our experience with mathams, or religious institutions,
how much do we know them, do they contribute to society and if yes,
how.
Interactive Session / Views expressed by the participants
Krishnan
I think that ashrams, monks, ascetics show the way of the scriptures,
and they preach religion. Personally, I have been associated with the
Ramakrishna Math, first as a part of the Bala Sangha, and later through
the Vivekananda Youth Association. This association with the matham,
especially the later years has had an immense impact on me, and what
I am today. There is a huge difference between who I was before I started
going to the Math, involving myself in the activities, reading the math
literature, and after all this. My perspective on all things is very
different and I saw and felt the change happening with me. The Matham
is relevant to society because they preach religion and peace through
that, and hold religious knowledge of the society. They are also relevant
not simply because they are involved with social activity, but because
there is a difference when they are involved with social activity. There
is a different quality of commitment and involvement. I have also read
some of Ramana Maharishi's teachings, and have gone to that ashram -
this has also been very relevant in my life, which I can relate to in
my everyday life.
Sri. Annamalai
I don't know any mathams or ashrams, only the Gandhi ashram. But
then now when we are looking at ashrams in a religious sense, I have
no association of that kind.
Priya
But I think that Gandhi was a deeply religious person, and he saw
no difference between his religion and his politics.
Sri.Annamalai
And today there are these debates on politicising religion or religionising
politics that I cannot say very much about this. As we saw in the definition,
a Matathipathi is about being the head of the philosophy, and not the
head of the institution - he is the authority on the philosophy. But
today most of these leaders are drowned in institutional administration
without spiritual pursuit. If there is spirituality, then the entire
place around them should vibrate with it, isn't it? In institutions
like Ramakrishna Math, or some Christian Missionaries, none of the monks,
heads or otherwise are attached to one place. They are shifted all the
time. There is no attachment. But in those cases, where the head becomes
all important, there problems will arise. With regard to their contribution
to the knowledge in society, yes, their influence on people is there,
and to that extent there is knowledge contribution; but then wherever
the heads become all important, they start trying to secure their interests
in the place, and start doing other things in this process. For instance,
spirituality has been left aside now for starting management and engineering
colleges. They have started converting philosophy to projects.
Shivshankar
There have been so many political philosophies, Karl Marx and so
on. But they have all been irreligious, or non-religious. Religion is
the base really of such things.
The Vedas are from God. They establish things in the beginning of Creation,
once it goes through its cycle into Pralaya, and then begins again,
the Vedas manifest themselves all over again. The Ashrams, our saints
are of this tradition, they bring this to the people. There is no question
whether they are necessary or not. Today there is talk of spiritual
and secular life, and the secular world says we do not need these. I
do not understand this distinction. Sister Nivedita says somewhere,
there is a stage when every action of a man is spiritual. Today, we
try to suppress our religious identity, it is considered aggressive
to wear religious symbols.
The ashrams that I have associated with are the Ramakrishna Math, Ramana
ashram and Anand ashram, and I have gained immensely from these. As
to knowledge contribution, they really do not bring anything new to
the people, it is the age-old things, but in their own words. They play
the role of the stabilisers of the society. In the Vijayanagar empire,
it was Vidyaranya, who was the guide for Harihara and Mugha. There have
been spiritual guides for political leaders through the ages here. Janaka,
the king was a self-realised person, and he ruled. So there was no distinction
in our understanding that religious and spiritual leaders, or monks
must not be involved in society. But yes, many went away to a secluded
place, to a rarefied environment because that is needed for a time for
the spiritual pursuit. Once it is realised they are back in society
to practice.
Their contribution to society can be seen from the people who come in
contact with them. For instance, there are some 200 of us from our company
who got together to do social work, based on our interaction with monks
from the Ramakrishna Math.
Sri. Annamalai
Charity, and inspiration and motivation to charity apart, now an ashram,
say the RamaKrishna Math has a purpose. How much does it affect the
people who are associated with the matham in their spiritual pursuit?
Has it made a difference in their spiritual lives is the question.
Prasanna
I have had no associations with any traditional mathams, ashrams,
organised religious institutions etc. if there has been any philosophical
influence, it may have been J.Krishnamurthi. I have also read publications
of the Ramakrishna Math, and they may have had some influence.
The contribution of ashrams, gurus etc., to society is not clear.
Yes, at a superficial level, they have brought people together time
and again, to do some work in the name of religion, God etc. But other
than this, I do not know if they have made any great impact. It is each
one's own experience to change himself and things, but in today's world,
there seems to be no time for experiencing all this at the individual
level.
The only one question I would ask is, if all these ashrams are there,
have they made the world a better place to live in, have they had a
larger impact on society, made it less violent etc? Of course there
are no references to see how the world would have been if these ashrams,
gurus etc had not been there.
Ram
The Indian village ashram
None of us here did think of a village, or villagers, considering they
are the majority in the country. Let us think of a village society.
If we go to a village, there would be a person in some part of the village
sitting by himself, doing some work, or somewhere in the fields, or
talking to someone, counselling etc. People would refer to him as 'Sami'.
I went around in the tsunami-struck villages, and in all these places
this is what I found. In some places this person is a medicine man,
collecting herbs and preparing medicines etc, in others he is sitting
in a place and people seem to be going to him and talking about their
problems and situations etc. People seem to be going to him not because
he talks, but because he listens.
In an Indian village context, 'matham' is a very common word. Matham
is a place where an evolved soul lives, according to them. And there
are very few common denominations for them - they place the good of
the village, the larger good over everything else, they are voluntarily
available to the villagers for any of their problems, to help or counsel.
And this is the contemporary Indian situation that I am talking about.
Not an ideal. And here, it is not this large institution which is what
we seem to know. It is in the village context that these ashrams, mathams
are the largest influence. These are not institutionalised like how
we know ashrams and mathams to be.
Larger Institutions
It is with Gautama Buddha that this kind of institutionalised work started.
And it was Swami Vivekananda who started institutionalised social work
/ activity, largely following the model of a christian missionary. Institutionalising
social activity was not there earlier. There may have been a couple
of instances, but those too only in the modern times, before Swami Vivekananda
started organised social activity. For example, during the British times,
there was a time when a large group of sadhus and sannyasis went across
parts of the country preaching against cow slaughter. With Swami Vivekananda
and his modern influence of institutions and their work, came social
activity by organised monasteries. Earlier, these were knowledge centres
of vedic learning - kancheepuram was a vedapatshala. Today, despite
being aligned to any of the bigger ashrams / order, people in the villages
have their local, traditional ashrams. Here in the cities, except a
few of us, who are in interaction with ashrams, monks etc in frequency,
others are not in touch. But in a village society, they are in touch
with the local sadhu on a daily basis. The villager might go for the
Ayappa tradition, or to Thirupathi, but for his local function, it is
the local sadhu who is there to bless.
But this (widespread) native knowledge that is there, is invisible to
us, does not appear in our radar screen. Only the larger institutions
come into our view and consideration. They are more visible, but the
traditional mathams play a larger role and have much more impact - they
are also the knowledge holders of the village society.
Two questions here,
- our perception. Why is it that we don't perceive these invisible,
localised small entities - have they become so insignificant?
- if the larger institutions are only bigger versions of the smaller
entities, do we then have our indicators to talk about their effectiveness?
What are these indicators? Should we talk about how many people they
have reached? Or should we compare them to the Indian Penal court, say,
in their effectiveness of reaching people? How do we measure?
We don't seem to have indicators, institutions of a similar nature to
compare with, or draw our indicators.
Prasanna
Effectiveness of such entities will have to be seen with their own said
objectives. It need not be a comparative one. Then people have to see
judge by the standards of these objectives set by them.
Priya
But the reality is that people do not judge by said objectives. They
only judge by their own framework of looking at things.
[There was a rapid, back-and-forth discussion here among the participants
about objectives of various such institutions, how can these be judged,
is this the method to judge, the objectivity and subjectivity of measurement
and judgement taking a large part of this discussion, the objective
of the church being conversion, and that christians have a belief that
if one can manage 50,000 converts -to christianity- then one has a reservation
in heaven, and so on without any conclusion]
Ram
This is commodification of religion. But let me clarify, we need to
look at effectiveness in terms of the impact of these institutions on
society, the larger public, and do we have common understood methods
of measuring their impact?
[The discussion here was largely with the consensus that there aren't
common understood measures for judging the effectiveness, the understanding
being - this is a qualitative measurement done by each individual and
not a quantitative one which lends itself to societal / public measurement.
Discussions on various factors of morality, spirituality, topics like
Truth and Love, for an individual. The question posed by Ram here to
the group was that, if a moral, ethical, code of conduct is an indicator
for an evolved, better person -from your own discussion- then, cannot
we do the same for a society? Cannot there be a code of conduct for
society? Here, the group again faced confusion because of the subjective-objective
problem (there seemed to be a problem to commit to anything that may
appear subjective, as is the case in most discussions Today). After
having come to the conclusion that the society does have indicators
for such measurement, the dialogue retreated to the point that this
can only be subjective and hence, individual. It took some more discussion
and debate for the group to arrive at the conclusion that there are
commonly accepted subjective parameters in society for these things.]
Ram
Just like you spoke about the spiritual leader's ability to love
and listen, there are some of these subjective analyses that are absolute
and stay on for more than 1000s of years, and for entire societies.
Why is this that today we are not able to accept this?
Shivshankar
It is because we are not able to accept this that we have the modern
notions of secularism.
Ram
In the West, indifference to religion is secularism. Here, equality
of religions is secularism. So, these commonly accepted parameters of
society, are what knowledge systems, civilisations, societies and their
cultures are built on. Then, in such a civilisational context, what
do these institutions mean or represent? How do we recognise and understand
them? What about our other public institutions which came later with
pre-designed structures without any intention or understanding to accommodate
our older institutions?
Do write to
us with your feedback