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.
