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.

54. "My Philosophy is Correct" - Deciphering the Parody of Faith

<< Previous - Longing - The Only Responsibility of a Jijnasu

To get some conviction to explore the innate hunch that I am something more than the body and the mind is in itself a great challenge. But once we get to that point somehow, there is a greater challenge on the cards - to face the distraction caused by the massive market of ideologies that compels one to go into the shopping mode. Which one to select? Which one is correct? The Indian philosophies (Darshanas) in this market basically vary in their opinion about Jiva (me), Jagat (world), Ishwara (God), and the relationship among them (the same is true across religious systems). Some say all are one reality, some say they are independent realities etc. This multitude of perspectives on reality isn't a cause for concern by itself; the concern here is the intense belief we carry that we must decide which philosophy is true before embarking on our personal spiritual journey. We believe that our journey will otherwise be misguided. Here I question this very belief and present a case to show why such a step - that of deciding on the correct philosophical conclusion - is unnecessary, ridiculous and indeed, compulsorily dispensable for a true seeker.

The belief can be deciphered as follows. Having realized the incompleteness and the discontent inherent in the physical and the mental, the spiritual process for an individual begins with an intense conviction - shraddha - that there is a culmination to our journey, a reality beyond the body and the mind; in the language of Upanishads - "That by knowing which everything is known". This core conviction is natural, and is triggered out of the saturation with the worldly affairs. The mind is not the source of this conviction, and it just gets expressed through the mind. It is not a mental process of belief. But more often than not, this conviction is made into a mental process by extending into the details of this presently-not-perceived reality, such as "I am the ultimate reality", "My soul is different from the super-soul", "Vishnu/Shiva is the ultimate reality" etc. And this is where the problem lies.

This extended conviction occurs because once it is accepted that there is something greater which is yet to be known, very few are potent enough to carry in them the intense emptiness of "I do not know anything about it" and wholeheartedly boil in the pain of ignorance about the nature of that reality. Most are highly impotent (incapable to acknowledge for long that "I do not know"), and very quickly they will yield to some beliefs; something like "I do not know.... but I think it is like this [mostly because someone else told like that]", after which they start feeling good by concealing their ignorance from themselves, and thereby fooling themselves that they know something about reality. Seeking ends and believing begins. Longing for a solution gives way to finding solace from stories. After this it is only about strengthening the beliefs, finding more people/scriptures who will endorse our belief, becoming aggressive towards other schools etc. The seeker is lost, and a fanatic is born. And then we always speak so assertively about the nature of reality, exactly as if we really know it. "Atman", "Brahman", and the relation between the two are then somehow more familiar to me than my relation with my spouse.

Of course, there are some arguments for why we become so. Some may say that only if we believe in the reality in its actual details (i.e. only if we have the extended conviction) we can get to it; so we must believe in a particular philosophical conclusion. That is, the belief about the nature of reality is being considered as the necessary part of the effort to perceive (to know firsthand) reality. But this is a fallacy; because it amounts to saying that the nature of the reality is within the reach of the mind (which belief is a part of) which all the systems have unanimously rejected. Effort to perceive can have nothing to do with the psychological aspect of belief.

Reality, however it is, is there to be seen by anyone who has enabled his perception of it, and this perception cannot be mental; and if we do the right things to go beyond the mind, we will perceive reality. Therefore, only the process of enabling this perception is relevant for us, not believing the stories about the reality we get to hear from others (regardless of whether they are true or not). For instance, it is not that the sun exists only for those who believe the sun to be round, and invisible for those who do not believe it to be round. The sun is visible in whatever form it exists for anyone who has opened his eyes; and for someone with closed eyes the sun doesn't exist irrespective of what shape they believe the sun to be of. Therefore, any belief about the shape and nature of the sun is simply irrelevant; only the effort to perceive the sun is imperative (arising from the core conviction that there is a sun to be seen).

Furthermore, the extended conviction about reality is not only irrelevant, it is also a hindrance. While the core conviction enables the longing to know reality and go beyond the mind, the extended conviction - no matter how logical - blocks it with stories at the mental level itself. The core conviction enlivens the seeking spirit, and the extended conviction kills it. "Too much of anything is bad", even conviction. The core conviction should intensify, but not extend. Thereby the process of enabling our perception - doing the right things to go beyond the mind - right away excludes possessing (or rather being possessed by) beliefs about the reality. What we need is only the core conviction, and the intense longing and the pain of ignorance arising out of it. Awareness of "I don't know" is akin to vacuum. As it intensifies, reality is automatically revealed. When we step aside, it steps in.

Apart from this essential point, there are several other supplementary reasons against the extended conviction:

• A believer of a particular philosophical school, no matter how learned he is, very often becomes hostile to other schools, while 'hostility' would ironically be listed as a "don't" in his own system. Thus extended beliefs lead to endarkenment, not enlightenment. This, actually, is the seed of terrorism if you look at it keenly - "My belief is correct, yours is wrong". It is indeed ridiculous if two blind people went about debating about how sun is, instead of putting some efforts to get their sight.
• A believer begins to extract his primary joy from the number of people that endorse his belief, rather than from his own practice. This is then no more a spiritual process, but only a juvenile and social process of mutual validation - "I am wearing blue, you are also wearing blue, yeaaaah!"
• If we keenly observe, the fundamental prescription behind the teachings of all the schools for "enabling our perception" is the same: to make the mind non-sticky (less compulsive and more conscious) so that we are freed of it. It is only that the techniques to achieve that may greatly vary - from breathing techniques and food regulation to charity and service. If this is so, what does it matter which school I am following? The purpose is only to outgrow the mind. It would be ironical to get stuck at the mental level with an extended belief about the nature of reality - "Me and God are one; Me and God are different; etc.".
• The beliefs are basically someone else's statements (conclusions) which we have not yet realized. If we utter them as if they are our statements, it amounts to fraud. It is like copying the final mathematical equations from a friend without us deriving them. We should therefore focus on the path - the process of enabling our perception - rather than the conclusions.

The problem being discussed here is an ancient one, and was precisely the reason why Gautama Buddha taught the way he taught. His teachings were founded on the four noble truths, which I put forth as follows:

"Are you at complete ease with existence? Are you blissful?" - No

"Do you think there is a reason behind this lack of ease?" - Yes

"The cause behind your suffering can be nullified"

"I know how to nullify it, and I can tell you step by step"

That is all - methods to solve our fundamental friction with existence and to fuel the longing for something more; and no metaphysical speculations about the universe and God. Because he saw that they are only traps for a seeker. Logic and contemplation should only be used to confront the dead-end of logic firsthand. This way, logic should be used to gradually outgrow logic, not to believe in a logical metaphysical conclusion and get stranded with the mind.

Ramana Maharshi elegantly summarized the matter as follows: Whether dualism or non-dualism, an individual accepts that jiva (himself) exists. So, resolve yourself first. There is plenty of time after that to decide whether to merge with Brahman, or stay separate!