Apie sekuliarizmą. R Y Deshpande

 

Susirašinėjimas su astrofiziku, žurnalo „Mother India” redaktoriumi R Y Deshpande truko nuo 1998 iki maždaug 2004-ųjų metų, kuris nutrūko dėl techninių priežasčių. Juose svarstėme įvairius klausimus, apimančius filosofiją, religiją, socialines problemas, politinius įvykius, Sri Aurobindo jogą, poeziją ir daugelį kitų dalykų. Jo prašymu siunčiau tekstus publikavimui ar skaičiau jo darbus. Apsikeitimas nuomonėmis buvo intensyvus. Iš gausaus susirašinėjimo internetu liko tik keletas laiškų, iš kurių publikuojame tekstą apie sekuliarizmą, iš kurio matyti problematikos apimtys.

Daiva Tamošaitytė

 

Meanwhile I‘d like to ask You to explain the concept of „secularism“ as You or Indian thought understand it. I‘ve found it very interesting whne Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said, that „secularism and Hindutva were not opposite concepts“. I concider secularism as paradox of social life, which can keep the door to the higher realities open.

Daiva (2003 spalio 8 d.)

Apropos of secularism you want me to explain what the concept could be in Indian thought. You write the following: “I’d like to ask you to explain the concept of secularism as you (or Indian thought) understand it. I’ve found very interesting proposition of Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, that secularism and Hindutva were not opposite concepts. I consider secularism as a paradox of social life, which can keep the door to the higher realities open.”

In a general sense the word ‘secular’ means ‘unrelated to religion’. Chambers has the following relevant entries: pertaining to the present world, or to things not spiritual; civil not ecclesiastical; lay; not concerned with religion; not bound by monastic rules; Negro song which is not spiritual. That this concept should have come into existence has a poignant history. Great price was paid to get this freedom it enshrines. But perhaps that itself is becoming oppressive now. That is the human dilemma.

Today the word secularism is bandied about by small men and big men, in time and out of time, by politicians, pseudo-secularists and non-secularists, including the media, with the result that a great confusion lurks in the minds of common Indians regarding the true meaning of secularism. But like many other concepts, and not always acceptable ones, it came to India from Europe. The Church tyranny was instrumental in its birth and had its raison d’être there. Today India prides herself as a secular democratic republic in contrast to the theocratic states we have around us. But it has also become a bad mantra which does not allow the true and frank expression of its proper spirit. By making it a part of the governmental working we have now created more problems than it came to solve. We forget the basic fact that the role of the government is to govern and the social problems must be tackled by the society itself. The Indian government is unnecessarily taking all that it should not. Right to worship, marriage act, freedom of expression, adoption of civil codes, education, for instance, are society’s concerns and not the government’s.

A friend of mine writes to me about the concept of Indianness. According to him it is equivalent to sanatana dharma which is eternal, impersonal (apourusheya) and is the religion of humanity. If we go by the best traditional sense of Indian values this has a justification, but it has only a partial justification. I maintain that sanatana dharma is not confined to a nation howsoever great or spiritual it might be. Indeed, it is universal in character. So also is the fourfold division of society or chaturvarna as the expressive mechanism of this sanatana dharma. The Lord of the Gita himself has proclaimed that he established it as the foundational basis for the working of the society. The question of religion or society does not enter into it and one who is perceptive to the truth of collective life will recognize it immediately. Our task shall be to project it to people who are open to these ideas and guide the world accordingly. Only when it is comprehended in its fullness can the higher powers of the spirit enter into the cosmic working.

I see the truth of sanatana dharma in the sense that “its real, most authoritative scripture is in the heart in which the Eternal has dwelling. It is in our inner spiritual experiences that we shall find the proof and source of the world’s scriptures, the law of knowledge, love and conduct.” We Indians yet have to discover it and live in it and then only can it possibly be offered to others. If so, there does not arise any question of preferences or prejudices, there do not or should not appear quarrels with the followers of different religions. In that “authoritative scripture” could be the true definition of secularism also.

When seen in this light we at once recognize the foreignness of the concept of secularism. It is not an Indian concept, as I said earlier, simply because we neither had a religious life in that sense nor greatly materialistic life of insatiate consumerism. In its best, though not always present, it strove to be the expression of the spirit. The problems we face therefore are the problems arising from imported concepts. Nehru, if we have to see in a certain manner, was not an Indian; his soul belonged to the West. Our present-day politicians as well as social thinkers, and the so-called elite, all belong again to the same category. I was telling my American audience recently that there are very few Indians in India in contrast to a much larger number of Americans in America.

If tyranny of the Church was the cause for the immediate arrival of secularism in Europe a little more than three hundred years ago, it was in fact the expression of the free spirit of man that found its way through. Even between the sects of the Church there were and are conflicts; in the Muslim world bloodshed is not uncommon.

If we are to quickly see the historical basis of these European ideas of secularism we may go back to the shortcomings of the past civilizations. Europe prides itself, and rightly so, on the enlightened reason of the Hellenic culture. Wide sweep of thought, reason, inquiry, perfection of form, aesthesis of right proportions, free political system among men of aristocracy were great virtues and we have received something praiseworthy and enduring. Today we have mostly empirical rationalism that came with Newton, practical mind given to production and commerce, play of free markets, though coupled with crass consumerism, even leading to what Sri Aurobindo has called “economic barbarism”, at the cost of other values of life leading to undignified utilitarianism. The Grecian and the imperialistic Roman Man was found deficient and came Christianity. There was no soul earlier and the psychic-emotional element came forward to fulfil the role. The Renaissance is the finest expression of this loving spirit of man. But then came also creed and dogma and the rule of the Church. Everything was spoilt and another cycle of human progress had to start. Secularism was the helper, but now secularism is the bar. So?

So our concern should be of the spiritualised society. In it the role of the individual becomes crucial long before the larger collective unit can be shaped into its dynamism. That is the greatness of man’s most precious possession. He is not a Nature’s automaton and his spiritual urges must find expression first. When he awakes to this possibility, then can we say that a significant beginning towards spiritualised society is made.

To quote Sri Aurobindo: “Spirituality is in its essence an awakening to the inner reality of our being, to a spirit, self, soul which is other than our mind, life and body, an inner aspiration to know, to feel, to be that, to enter into contact with the greater Reality beyond and pervading the universe which inhabits also our own being, to be in communion with It and union with It, and a turning, a conversion, a transformation of our whole being as a result of the aspiration, the contact, the union, a growth or waking into a new becoming or new being, a new self, a new nature.” (The Life Divine, p. 857)

Well, you will understand from this hurried note of mine the real problem that we are facing is the problem of an invigorating spiritual philosophy in the working of modern life. Let us give more thought to it and try to do something befitting to the Aurobindonian vision. I hope, in writing these hurried thoughts, I have not become too forthright to hurt you. If so, please excuse me—because it is all meant to be in the true spirit of things.

I shall appreciate to receive your comments about what I have said here. The problems of your society are of a different kind than ours, but I believe the fundamentals get affected in the least. Let me all the same try to understand your contexts.

R Y Deshpande, (2003 spalio 18 d.)

 

Thank you very much for your prompt and vital explanation of the concept of secularism.

The question about secularism has risen naturally, because the Convention of European Union decided to reject the formulation of “Christianity” as a foundation of human values proposing the larger concept of “spirituality” (this is about future EU Constitution). This attempt provoked enormous indignation of some intellectuals and people of religion and culture in Lithuania, Poland and some other countries, and in many topics they try to “prove” the supposed Christian roots of what Europe is today and has best. I don’t say the secularism is panacea, but nowadays it seems to me the best way to deal with many forms of religious fundamentalism (we live surrounded by constant clashes between rigorous partisans of different religions) and to be above the remnants of the past. I think it is the brightest of the latest achievements of “high spiritual diplomacy”, primarily of French thought and Enlightenment, and in a deeper sense, I feel, what is meant by secularity here does not contradict with spirituality, but, on the contrary, gives a new push for a man’s soul. In order to avoid hatred, European Convention declared the equality of all religions and proposed to use word “spirituality” as a common ground. I think it is very important and full of promises regarding Aurobindonian vision of spiritual unity of humanity. On the other side, globalization makes impossible the very possibility to build separate Eden – no country can claim for this, I believe. Western passion for development of outer side of life, its efficiency, opulence and pragmatic innovations is like an obsession and throughout one-sided, but the fact is, that it is, perhaps, unconscious effort to make life perfect to very material details – the effort which is not blameworthy by itself. When the Mother says firmly, that in a future will be no religions, she means it! It doesn’t matter what kind of religion – Hindu, Judaic or Mohammedan. It will become as impossible as primitive cults are now, left only for a narrow anthropological studies as a curious subject. Secularism might be a foreign concept to Indian culture, and it is, but personified by Nehru and social thinkers and present-days politicians, as you has rightly remarked, that imported problem has to be faced and solved by Indian people. “Western style” becomes a part of Asian social life, and it is enigma for me too, why people accept things they hate? As I understand, you want to say, that India is following its own path, which trough Hinduism and “invigorating spiritual philosophy” by successive development and evolution goes straight to transformed future life, to sanatana dharma, to Supramental Being. But I suspect, that Europeans and Indians conceive secularism differently, as well as spirituality for Western thought has perhaps slightly another emphasis than for Indian (for example, there are many different occult practices in a West among so called “secular” people). The difference lies in, I believe, level of understanding, the capacity to go deep into problem, intuition. Let me to improvise a little. The Mother, being French artist, was entirely “secular” in a sense, that, as she said many times, she never felt familiar with Christian Church, its dogmas and rites. But she was Divine, and spirituality grew up from Her heart naturally, so she had not “to convert from secularism” or something of that kind: only secular France was perfectly safe and free place by spirit to enable the Mother to be born there (and on Earth). Sri Aurobindo “grew up” in a similar climate, which enabled Him to reconstruct old Indian sutras in such a new and dramatic way. I would think even that Their world-view in early days was not so “atheistic”, as some biographers puts it, because to be atheistic means consciously to fight against God, to try to prove He does not exist. Wouldn’t it better to use the word “secular”, i. e. “not related to religion”? But these are only my personal thoughts.

As to myself, I never identified with Christianity in any form. Besides, spirituality for Christians is only one part, firmly tied up with a concept of Trinity. It is too rigid and confronts with fundamental truths like evolution, reincarnation etc. It gives very painful and even harmful tone to relations between Christians and people, who try to find another, more proper, deeper, modern way to God. When I came to Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, I “recognized” immediately Their message and spirit, as if I was waiting for it. Why? And the more I look into world around me, the more I understand the crucial “otherness” of the purpose They came for. It is so powerful, new and far-reaching to compare to the world around, either religious or secular! But Judaic tradition and its “children”, except some very esoteric teachings, is closed and even inimical to very possibility of such a kind of development of man’s soul, life and body. Before Christianity came to my country, Lithuania had very similar attitude towards Being, Nature and man, like Hindus. We still are Indo-Europeans, after all. Many now, slowly, begin to come back to their native roots, by studying East cultures, Indo-European and Lithuanian mythology. Would here be no Christianity, which is foreign to our soul, though adopted (by sword!) as much as possible, it would be much easier to come to the teaching of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Politics are not benevolent to it here: every free interpretation of spiritual truths in common public opinion is considered as heresy, and if not secularism, we would fall into torpor or even worse condition. Sri Aurobindo means death to Christian interpretation of the world – otherwise it is not Christianity. So how they can be tolerant? However liberating process goes on. West accepts relativity in many fields of life; according to Sri Aurobindo, lack of such thinking capacity was a great defect of the Occident. I believe, one day East will meat West on a different background altogether.

Dear Deshpande, I am closing my comments on this delicate subject. You can’t be “too forthright” (it is very dear conversation to me), and I hope I wasn’t either.

I have read your “Twelve years”, in which you give so vivid picture of Nirod-da’s intentions and the deep meaning of his work. It is very important to come back to this book, to get a fresh inspiration, even real touch again. There are so many instances in it, which teaches us how to deal with a world in a proper way. The book (as other books of Nirodbaran, “Conversations” etc.) is terribly urgent and will be such for a long time. It must even become more and more urgent in time along with peoples growing consciousness.

I am especially thankful to you for statements like “in the unregenerate state of society the Mahakali power gets appropriated by the Asuric forces” (it echoes Sri Aurobindo’s saying, that not assimilated Force of Shakti acts as a destructive power). It is very sound reason why today we have what we have, isn’t it? The mountain I spoke of last time is the past, personal and impersonal, and it is felt in spite of progressing sadhana, and even more so, when you go into this barbaric world all naked. It is always a challenge to it, if we are trying to make a slightest move. But there is no other way.

Daiva (2003 spalio 25 d.)

 

Cituota iš asmeninio Daivos Tamošaitytės archyvo