56. Question, But out of Conviction, not Suspicion

In the fourth chapter of the Bhagavadgītā, Kr̥ṣṇa clarifies and resolves a significant issue in relation to questioning, śraddhā (faith/conviction), surrender and suspicion.

While emphasizing jñāna as the ultimate goal, he advises Arjuna that to attain ātmajñāna he should approach a Guru as a seeker (4.34). Here he lists three qualities of a seeker: 1) Praṇipāta (prostration, attitude of surrender) 2) Paripraśna (questioning) and 3) Sēvā (serving the Guru)

The first two are apparently contradictory. Our usual idea is that once you have surrendered to someone and have utmost faith in them, you should not question what they say. Whenever someone questions some tradition elders usually say that it should not be questioned and should be followed with faith.

This attitude exists because people have confused "questioning out of inquisitiveness" with "questioning out of suspicion". Since latter type of questioning is more prevalent (as in news channels!), all questions get branded as against faith. But questions by themselves are not against faith. In fact sincere questions rise out of deep faith/conviction.

Questions arise because something seems odd, and you want an explanation for it. For e.g. if a physics professor is teaching General theory of Relativity of Einstein, many aspects of the theory will defy common sense. Therefore a student may raise a question about it. Here the student is asking the question not to challenge the theory (or Einstein or the professor), but to get explanations as to how it is so. Question is arising out of the conviction that the theory is right, not out of suspicion towards it. But if you fall into suspicion mode, the moment something seems odd, you will straightaway presume that something is wrong with the theory; thereafter no one can convince you what the theory really says as you have already made a [negative] conclusion. You will no more put any effort to understand the theory. All your questions and efforts thereafter will only be to challenge and ridicule the theory; no answer will matter to you anymore[1]. Thus Kr̥ṣṇa says "saṁśayātmā vinaśyati" (a suspecting man perishes) (4.40).

Thus we should question out of conviction. But how does the conviction come? Should we have conviction no matter what is said? In case of physics, theories are proved by experiments, and therefore a new student will naturally have conviction on its legitimacy. But what about spirituality?

For instance, spirituality claims "You are not the body or mind, you transcend both". Now this is an apparently odd claim. But just because it is counterintuitive we cannot brush it aside in a hurry. We may not be able to obtain objective proof (pratyakṣa pramāṇa) for such lofty spiritual claims in a laboratory as in physics (because they are subjective experiences), but we surely can infer (anumāna pramāṇa) the higher possibilities—grand qualities such as equanimity amidst great turmoil—that have been exhibited by spiritual masters in every age. And consequently, the words of such beings become āgama pramāṇa[2]; for they not only claim that they have experienced something, but also explain how we can also get there[3]. Also, we should ask ourselves — if spirituality was all dummy without any substance to it, why is it that so many individuals in every age endorsed it? If it was fundamentally baseless, how is it that these spiritual disciplines survived for thousands of years without any forceful imposition by anyone? Therefore, suspecting and ridiculing the entire gamut of spirituality is outright idiocy.

On the other hand there is another problem of simply believing things without trying to experience them firsthand (because of laziness to put the efforts). Many people have great faith on Kr̥ṣṇa; but they do not attempt to study and adopt the teachings of the Gītā! While some quickly suspect and disbelieve, some others quickly believe. Both are not very different in that both are not honest enough to accept that "I do not know". Believers simply utter the lofty statements present in the scriptures without any personal exploration or experience of the same. This is like claiming marks for the derivation of an equation in the mathematics examination without actually deriving it, saying "I have complete faith on my teacher who derived it in the class!"

Therefore only when surrender and questioning go together something worthwhile happens. Śraddhā and questions are therefore complementary, not contradictory. "Śraddhāvān labhatē jñānam" (4.39) — a man of śraddhā surely attains jñāna.

---

[1] Indeed, the major problem of today's generation is that we quickly yield to some conclusion without much exploration or study; sharp but impatient/lazy intellect is the trademark of this century. Most of the discussions reveal that people involved have already decided something, and are discussing only to assert.

[2] In fact even in case of science a new student has no personal understanding (nor the ability to understand) of the proof to begin with. She goes by inference (seeing the technological advancements) and faith on the scientists (because they provide a method to experiment and understand it ourselves), and only in the end comes to a direct understanding of the theoretical-experimental proofs. Similarly in spirituality a seeker goes by inference (seeing the human advancement in the masters) and faith (because of the methods provided for personal realization).

[3] But if someone claims that he has a spiritual realization that is reserved only for him, then there is no point in believing him, disbelieving him or questioning him. We may as well just ignore him.