The Root of our Existence as Bharathiyas - Sanathana Dharma!

Bharatha Khanda

Preamble: Whether you are a Brahmin, Lingayath, Gowda, Okkaliga, Kuruba, Dalith, SC, ST, OBC, Rajasthani, Kashmiri, Malayali, Manipuri, Marathi, Sikh, Jain, Buddist any other religions, multi Billionaire or a Beggar, as long as your ancestors were born on the land of Bharatha Khanda, here lies our moola - the roots:

THE VEDANTA

(By Swami Vivekananda, Delivered at Lahore on 12th November, 1897)

Two worlds there are in which we live, one the external, the other internal. Human progress has been made, from days of yore, almost in parallel lines along both these worlds. The search began in the external, and man at first wanted to get answers for all the deep problems from outside nature. Man wanted to satisfy his thirst for the beautiful and the sublime from all that surrounded him; he wanted to express himself and all that was within him in the language of the concrete; and grand indeed were the answers he got, most marvellous ideas of God and worship, and most rapturous expressions of the beautiful. Sublime ideas came from the external world indeed. But the other, opening out for humanity later, laid out before him a universe yet sublimer, yet more beautiful, and infinitely more expansive. In the Karma Kânda portion of the Vedas, we find the most wonderful ideas of religion inculcated, we find the most wonderful ideas about an overruling Creator, Preserver, and Destroyer of the universe presented before us in language sometimes the most soul-stirring. Most of you perhaps remember that most wonderful Shloka in the Rig-Veda Samhitâ where you get the description of chaos, perhaps the sublimest that has ever been attempted yet. In spite of all this, we find it is only a painting of the sublime outside, we find that yet it is gross, that something of matter yet clings to it. Yet we find that it is only the expression of the Infinite in; the language of matter, in the language of the finite, it is,. the infinite of the muscles and not of the mind; it is the infinite of space and not of thought. Therefore in the second portion of Jnâna Kânda, we find there is altogether a different procedure. The first was a search in external nature for the truths of the universe; it was an attempt to get the solution of the deep problems of life from the material world. यस्यैते हिमवन्तो महित्वा — "Whose glory these Himalayas declare". This is a grand idea, but yet it was not grand enough for India. The Indian mind had to fall back, and the research took a different direction altogether; from the external the search came to the internal, from matter to mind. There arose the cry, "When a man dies, what becomes of him?" अस्तीत्येके नायमस्तीति चैके — "Some say that he exists, others that he is gone; say, O king of Death, what is the truth?" An entirely different procedure we find here. The Indian mind got all that could be had from the external world, but it did not feel satisfied with that; it wanted to search further, to dive into its own soul, and the final answer came.

The Upanishads, or the Vedanta, or the Âranyakas, or Rahasya is the name of this portion of the Vedas. Here we find at once that religion has got rid of all external formalities. Here we find at once that spiritual things are told not in the language of matter, but in the language of the spirit; the superfine in the language of the superfine. No more any grossness attaches to it, no more is there any compromise with things of worldly concern. Bold, brave, beyond the conception of the present day, stand the giant minds of the sages of the Upanishads, declaring the noblest truths that have ever been preached to humanity, without any compromise, without any fear. This, my countrymen, I want to lay before you. Even the Jnana Kanda of the Vedas is a vast ocean; many lives are necessary to understand even a little of it. Truly has it been said of the Upanishads by Râmânuja that they form the head, the shoulders, the crest of the Vedas, and surely enough the Upanishads have become the Bible of modern India. The Hindus have the greatest respect for the Karma Kanda of the Vedas, but, for all practical purposes, we know that for ages by Shruti has been meant the Upanishads, and the Upanishads alone. We know that all our great philosophers, whether Vyâsa, Patanjali, or Gautama, and even the father of all philosophy, the great Kapila himself, whenever they wanted an authority for what they wrote, everyone of them found it in the Upanishads, and nowhere else, for therein are the truths that remain for ever.

There are truths that are true only in a certain line, in a certain direction, under certain circumstances, and for certain times — those that are founded on the institutions of the times. There are other truths which are based on the nature of man himself, and which must endure so long as man himself endures. These are the truths that alone can be universal, and in spite of all the changes that have come to India, as to our social surroundings, our methods of dress, our manner of eating, our modes of worship — these universal truths of the Shrutis, the marvellous Vedantic ideas, stand out in their own sublimity, immovable, unvanquishable, deathless, and immortal. Yet the germs of all the ideas that were developed in the Upanishads had been taught already in the Karma Kanda. The idea of the cosmos which all sects of Vedantists had to take for granted, the psychology which has formed the common basis of all the Indian schools of thought, had there been worked out already and presented before the world. A few words, therefore, about the Karma Kanda are necessary before we begin the spiritual portion, the Vedanta; and first of all I should like to explain the sense in which I use the word Vedanta.

Unfortunately there is the mistaken notion in modern India that the word Vedanta has reference only to the Advaita system; but you must always remember that in modern India the three Prasthânas are considered equally important in the study of all the systems of religion. First of all there are the Revelations, the Shrutis, by which I mean the Upanishads. Secondly, among our philosophies, the Sutras of Vyasa have the greatest prominence on account of their being the consummation of all the preceding systems of philosophy. These systems are not contradictory to one another, but one is based on another, and there is a gradual unfolding of the theme which culminates in the Sutras of Vyasa. Then, between the Upanishads and the Sutras, which are the systematising of the marvellous truths of the Vedanta, comes in the Gita, the divine commentary of the Vedanta.

The Upanishads, the Vyâsa-Sutras, and the Gita, therefore, have been taken up by every sect in India that wants to claim authority for orthodoxy, whether dualist, or Vishishtâdvaitist, or Advaitist; the authorities of each of these are the three Prasthanas. We find that a Shankaracharya, or a Râmânuja, or a Madhvâchârya, or a Vallabhâcharya, or a Chaitanya — any one who wanted to propound a new sect —had to take up these three systems and write only a new commentary on them. Therefore it would be wrong to confine the word Vedanta only to one system which has arisen out of the Upanishads. All these are covered by the word Vedanta. The Vishishtadvaitist has as much right to be called a Vedantist as the Advaitist; in fact I will go a little further and say that what we really mean by the word Hindu is really the same as Vedantist. I want you to note that these three systems have been current in India almost from time immemorial; for you must not believe that Shankara was the inventor of the Advaita system. It existed ages before Shankara was born; he was one of its last representatives. So with the Vishishtadvaita system: it had existed ages before Ramanuja appeared, as we already know from the commentaries he has written; so with the dualistic systems that have existed side by side with the others. And with my little knowledge, I have come to the conclusion that they do not contradict each other.

Just as in the case of the six Darshanas, we find they are a gradual unfolding of the grand principles whose music beginning far back in the soft low notes, ends in the triumphant blast of the Advaita, so also in these three systems we find the gradual working up of the human mind towards higher and higher ideals till everything is merged in that wonderful unity which is reached in the Advaita system. Therefore these three are not contradictory. On the other hand I am bound to tell you that this has been a mistake committed by not a few. We find that an Advaitist teacher keeps intact those texts which especially teach Advaitism, and tries to interpret the dualistic or qualified non-dualistic texts into his own meaning. Similarly we find dualistic teachers trying to read their dualistic meaning into Advaitic texts. Our Gurus were great men, yet there is a saying, "Even the faults of a Guru must be told". I am of Opinion that in this only they were mistaken. We need not go into text-torturing, we need not go into any sort of religious dishonesty, we need not go into any sort of grammatical twaddle, we need not go about trying to put our own ideas into texts which were never meant for them, but the work is plain and becomes easier, once you understand the marvellous doctrine of Adhikârabheda.

It is true that the Upanishads have this one theme before them: कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवति। — "What is that knowing which we know everything else?" In modern language, the theme of the Upanishads is to find an ultimate unity of things. Knowledge is nothing but finding unity in the midst of diversity. Every science is based upon this; all human knowledge is based upon the finding of unity in the midst of diversity; and if it is the task of small fragments of human knowledge, which we call our sciences, to find unity in the midst of a few different phenomena, the task becomes stupendous when the theme before us is to find unity in the midst of this marvellously diversified universe, where prevail unnumbered differences in name and form, in matter and spirit — each thought differing from every other thought, each form differing from every other form. Yet, to harmonise these many planes and unending Lokas, in the midst of this infinite variety to find unity, is the theme of the Upanishads. On the other hand, the old idea of Arundhati Nyâya applies. To show a man the fine star Arundhati, one takes the big and brilliant nearest to it, upon which he is asked to fix his eyes first, and then it becomes quite easy to direct his sight to Arundhati. This is the task before us, and to prove my idea I have simply to show you the Upanishads, and you will see it. Nearly every chapter begins with dualistic teaching, Upâsanâ. God is first taught as some one who is the Creator of this universe, its Preserver, and unto whom everything goes at last. He is one to be worshipped, the Ruler, the Guide of nature, external and internal, yet appearing as if He were outside of nature and external. One step further, and we find the same teacher teaching that this God is not outside of nature, but immanent in nature. And at last both ideas are discarded, and whatever is real is He; there is no difference. तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो — "Shvetaketu, That thou art." That Immanent One is at last declared to be the same that is in the human soul. Here is no Compromise; here is no fear of others' opinions. Truth, bold truth, has been taught in bold language, and we need not fear to preach the truth in the same bold language today, and, by the grace of God, I hope at least to be one who dares to be that bold preacher

 ~~~~~ O ~~~~~

Postamble: 

Swami Vivekananda, in the same lecture, then goes on discussing about prana, subtle bodies, anthahkarana, so on and finally the core of Vedanta itself - the Brahman and the practical Vedanta. Here's the link to the full article on his complete lecture on this topic:

https://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_3/lectures_from_colombo_to_almora/the_vedanta.htm

Here in this page, its worth calling out the last part of his lecture:

For in the West the old order of things is vanishing, giving way to a new order of things, which is the worship of gold, the worship of Mammon. Thus this old crude system of religion was better than the modern system, namely — competition and gold. No nation, however strong, can stand on such foundations, and the history of the world tells us that all that had such foundations are dead and gone. In the first place we have to stop the incoming of such a wave in India. Therefore preach the Advaita to every one, so that religion may withstand the shock of modern science. Not only so, you will have to help others; your thought will help out Europe and America. But above all, let me once more remind you that here is need of practical work, and the first part of that is that you should go to the sinking millions of India, and take them by the hand, remembering the words of the Lord Krishna:

इहैव तैर्जितः सर्गो येषां साम्ये स्थितं मनः।
निर्दोषं हि समं ब्रह्म तस्मात् ब्रह्मणि ते स्थिताः॥

"Even in this life they have conquered relative existence whose minds are firm-fixed on the sameness of everything, for God is pure and the same to all; therefore, such are said to be living in God."

Gandhi Pithaamaha

 

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) - Some call him RashtraPitha, and some, Mahaathma. Certainly, Rabindra Nath Tagore (1861-1941) was one among the firsts who called him 'Mahathma', though its not an established fact who gave him the title or called him as such for the very first time. And it was Subhas Chandra Bose (1897-1945) who called him 'Father of Nation' OR 'Rashtrapita' for the first time as the history holds it. I like to address him, by combining the halves of the two words, 'PithaMaha' - Gandhi Pithaamaha! Pithamaha in sanskrit means grandfather. Isn't he referred to as grandfather by the kids even today? Of course, there is a better reason I choose to call him so that we will see in a little while. There are people who praise him as well as those who criticize him. And if at all they come together in one platform, there is an endless arguments, thanks to the poor intellectual strength in at least one of the two opposite parties of arguments trying to escape the defeat of the argument or their biased inclinations that makes them shy away from truth brought out in the course of argument, or their ill intentions not wanting to establish the truth or in the fear of not facing the consequences of proclaiming the truth! Since my childhood, I have grown hearing to the stories in praise of Gandhiji. However, as I grew older I came across views both in favor of and against Gandhiji. This gave birth to the longing in me for Sathyagraha - Asserting the truth about Gandhiji himself. Thus I started exploring more about Gandhiji and his idea of non-violence and its implementation. In my opinion, if we as an entire nation, cannot even conclude upon the truth behind Gandhiji's actions, I doubt if we can ever make any fruitful efforts in uniting this nation as one entity. Again, we as an entire nation, lets come together to give Gandhiji the place he deserves rather than keep pulling him apart between trying to portray him as either being godly or being devilish.

        This article is therefore a sincere attempt with the little knowledge that I have gathered, to critically analyze Gandhiji's experimentation of truth,  that he has left for the rest of humanity ( for those who have come after him into the world ), to be interpreted and come to any conclusions of the experimentation. I have purposefully omitted several aspects of Gandhiji's life in this article. While his entire life till his last breath was an experimentation, obviously how could Gandhiji himself conclude anything about the experimentation. Isn't it? If one explores the biography of Gandhiji,  one cannot find him reasoning out verbally or in written, some of his major decisions in connection to Bharath's freedom struggle. However, with the available resources about him and by him, we should still be able to quest for truth about Gandhiji, his principle and his actions. When you consider someone as a leader of the masses, single out him as a hero or a savior of the nation, or when one needs to take guidance from the footprints of such a person from the history, one should question every action, twists and turns of such a person and get the satisfying answers. And only after that one should accept or reject the way that person is portrayed. I wonder if there has ever been extensive debates by the strong intellectuals to assert the truth here, not the kind of endless debates of the TV shows, but to get into the depths of discussions coupled with the vastness of knowledge about Gandhiji, the scriptures as well as the history with the sole intention to conquest the truth as it happens in the court of law. If we want to unite this nation and make it as developed, I presume such a debate and establishing of the truth is a necessity today than ever before. Even after 70+ years of independence, we don't have one idea, one goal, commonality in our thoughts about the future of our nation. Look at Japan, look at Israel. The entire nation's thought process is in harmony when it comes to patriotism, towards the betterment of their nation. Whereas, here in Bharath, we have always had a conflicting ideas. Its important that we first address the root of this problem. An important step in that direction is certainly to look at our history and fix the issues that has been created then. One of the major issues in the past is certainly that of Gandhiji's actions that has influenced the masses of Bharatha. And if we do not conclude on Gandhiji, we will never be able to achieve anything worthwhile in a long run for the better of this nation. That's because though Gandhiji's intentions might have been to unify the nation, in reality his actions were confusing and contradicting. And the impact of this can be seen even today, in some way or the other which has penetrated our society. We will attempt to explore the same, later in this article.

         

Some similarities of the recent and past history of Bharatha:

Several events took place in the life of Gandhiji at the time of Freedom struggle which coincides with the situation of Bheeshma of Mahaharatha. Let me illustrate the similarities:

        Bheeshma is the earliest person of Mahabharatha that almost eveyone will definately know at least in Bharatha. Even his father Shanthanu might not be known to many, 

Gandhiji will be the earliest person that everyone will certainly know as the freedom fighter. Far less  the people would identify that there were those who fought for freedom from British rule even before the 1857 or identify the 1857 struggle itself to be the first war of freedom struggle, leave alone the prominent members of that struggle.

        Bheeshma's love for his family and his every attempt to unite the two groups - Kauravas and Pandavas was only more misused through Shakuni's cunningness who was the foremost representative of the Kauravas as well as the adamancy of the Duryodana.

Gandhiji's love for his larger family, and his every attempt to unite all communities into one nation and oppose the two nation theory (coined by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan) was only more so misused through the cunningness and adamancy of Jinnah, the representative of the All India Muslims League, and the Jihadi ideas of separation by the Rehmat Ali demanding separate country (Pakistan) from rest of Bharath.

 
        Bheeshma's as well as Pandavas every attempt to keep the peace and unity among the two groups of his one family namely the Pandavas and Kauravas were only more so ignored and threw aside by the Kauravas and not only so but also attempted to kill the Pandavas during their stay in Lakshagraha of Varanavarta. As if the separation of the two countries into Hastinapur and Indraprasta was not enough, Duryodana (with his hatred towards his own cousins, Pandavas and greed for power) continued with his attempt to kill the Pandavas and conquer Indrapasta too.

Gandhiji made every attempt to convince Jinnah and in turn the AILM to giveup the idea of separation and to be united as one nation. He even offered the PM post for Jinnah. Misusing these, Jinnah kept his demands one after the other and inspite of fulfilling all of these, their (his and the AIML's) effort to have a separate country never ceased. Instead, Jinnah called for the direct action day, killing millions of Hindus. As if that is not enough even after separation there were massacre of Hindus returning from the newly formed country Pakistan to Bharatha. The hatred of Bharatha by the Jihadis does not end there. With its greed for land, it continued even after 44 years of separation of the nation in the form of genocide of Kashmiri Pandits and still continues in the form of bombing, conversions, etc even today.

 

        Bheeshma's one pointed devotion to Dharma as the only highest principle of human life made him silent even during the injustice to Draupadi in the courtyard. It also made him to fight the war in support of Kauravas against the Pandavas, knowing fully well that Kauravas were unrighteous, against his own interest and will. It seems as though he did not pay attention to knowledge that compassion is at the root of Dharma

Similarly, Gandhiji's one pointed devotion to non-violence as the only means to oppose injustice and untruth, made him to not only let the WW-II happen to the full satisfaction of its core participants but also sent our soldiers to take part in it. On the other instance, it also led him to bear the pain in silence, the partition of Bharatha. And the biggest reason for him to be hated by many is - Because of his very same one pointed devotion to non-violence as the highest approach, he encouraged Hindus to keep quite for the atrocities by the Muslim Jihadi counter parts in mass killings and rapes that took place.   

Bhagavad Gita 

     It is so universal, encompassing every aspect of human life that, to whichever shaped and sized vessel you pour it into, it takes that form. True to the Vedantic ideal, it helps every human being to raise to this highest ideal through one's own personality. For a Professor of Management institute it gives management lessons. For corporates, it gives lessons of social responsibilities. For bhakas of Krishna, it gives the lessons of Bhakti Yoga and Krishna to be the ultimate goal. For Karma Yogis it gives the lessons of non-attachment through action. For a soldier, it has full of lessons of courage and manliness and ruthlessness towards the enemies of Justice.

Gandhiji's View on Bhagavad-Gita: Gandhiji considered the Gita to be the lessons for an individual on the mental plane - of the internal fight of the human mind with one's own weaknesses than that of the external fight among human beings - Arjuna and his enemies. That was well suited for his personality and belief in non-violence to use it for his own inner transformation. However, Gandhiji didn't stop there. He started preaching the same to the masses as well. Thus he argued Mahabharata was fought "not to show the necessity or inevitability of war, but to demonstrate the futility of war and violence". Of course, no human being on this planet seeking peace and harmony would endorse the war without first attempting every other means to avoid it. Thus, Gandhiji himself didn't quite consider the Mahabharatha to be an epic, rather he seemed to have assumed it to be a mythology far from truth and reality! Today's excavations and archeological evidences shows clearly that these were not mere mythology rather the events that took place in the history. Do we really need a modern proof to believe in our own culture and history?  If Gandhiji had been raised in the right environment or if he had went through sufficient learning of our history and culture under the right guidance, may be he would not have made such an assumption. 

In order for us to understand more on how Gandhiji considered Bhagavad Gita we should critically examine one of his speech at New Delhi during the prayer meeting:   

"We should dispassionately think where we are drifting. Hindus should not harbour anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives. None should fear death. Birth and death are inevitable for every human being. Why should we then rejoice or grieve? If we die with a smile we shall enter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new India. The concluding verses of the second chapter of Gita describes how a godfearing man should live. I would exhort you to read and understand those verses and ponder over their meaning. You will then realize what our ideal is and how far short of it we are today." (April 6, 1947)

We will address the first half of the above statements a little later. For now, in the context of this speech, let us dispassionately focus on the second half, about what he says about Gita and his advice to the audience.  Here, Gandhiji is referring to the qualities of Sthitaprajna. Sthitaprajna, is certainly the ideal state, not just for Hindus, but every human being should aspire for and work towards that through sadhana. However, if we read the above passage one or more times, one will understand that Gandhiji considered the qualities of Sthitaprajna to be the central theme of Gita plus considered it to be the commandment given by Krishna rather than the goal towards which we should work. In other words, he considered the entire Bhagavad Gita to be a doctrine just like Bible and Quran! To make it more clearer, its like saying, "I tell how you should be, and you must just live like that" That's what doctrines are all about. They are commandments. It looks like, Gandhiji never understand that neither Bhagavad Gita nor any of the Hindu scriptures has anything to do with commandments. Rather they are the guiding light for the humans to show the purpose and goal of life for them to work towards the ideal, through their life. Also, observe that Gandhiji is referring to phrase "god fearing". Again, unlike Abrahamic religions, Sanathana Dharma which we also refer to as Hinduism, is not god fearing. Rather it is about realizing the divinity within! So, in totality, Gandhiji, hadn't put enough efforts in understanding about Sanathana Dharma, our culture and tradition at all! Or was he deliberately not willing to understand them. Obviously, his focus was more of solving political issue - to get freedom than understanding the scriptures in depth. Its not about whether he was willing to know or not, its his chosen ideal as well as the goal together that made him blind to every other thoughts and ideas. 

Sathyagraha on non-violence:

 Let's attempt sathya-agraha about Gandhiji's formost principle - non-violence to seek lessons for ourselves. The words Gandhiji and non-violence are synonyms. Aren't they? Let's have some glimpses into the idea of non-violence:

let us first explore a bit more on "non-violence". In various scriptures of Sanatana Dharma, such as  Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata, Patanjali Yoga Sutra, Jabal Darshanopanishad of Samaveda, etc. one will find many mentions, explanations about the word Ahimsa. From the point of view of Gandhiji's understanding, lets make the explanation of this word simple. In who's life can non-violence become a natural reality? The article on the Stages of Human Excellence explains what possibilities exists for a human being. It would be a good idea to glance through it since I will refer to it more than once here. The last stage provides a glimpse into a person's experience of the same Atman - the Self in everyone, everywhere and in everything within and without. For such a being what does it matter whether he lives in a constricted and limited frame called the human body? For such a being what is there to be feared and to become violent about? This is certainly the ultimate truth that one should seek and be realized. For any human being the strongest attachment is to one's own body. Therefore, at the least, people of class 5 and above in the already mentioned article, are the ones to whom the attachment to the body has fallen off naturally. So for all such people non-violence is a natural reality. The very presence of such people influences the minds of the beings surrounding him. Anguli maala came to kill Buddha, but becomes his disciple. More about Ahimsa in the later section.

 

Sathyagraha on Gandhiji

 When we study the life of Gandhiji, we can easily guess that he belongs around the classes two and three of the stages of human excellence mentioned above - Certainly, above the class where we, the masses of Bharatha belong to. Isn't it? In other words, for an individual, to practice non-violence one should at least have the purity of non-attachment to the worldly things as the bare minimum requirement. Leave alone non-violence, even to lead the life of simplicity we utterly fail. Gandhiji's life was not about non-violence in luxury. It was an austerity all through - Sometimes of fasting and sometimes of complete silence. He was certainly an evolved seeker of truth! In my opinion, it was easier for Gandhiji to live the life of a sadhaka, owing to his nature as an introvert. His life was certainly an experimentation with the truth. However, he was yet to realize the idea of non-violence, that is, those of the order of class 5 and above! So, again, in my opinion, there was still a long way before Gandhiji could have the authority to lead the masses towards the practice of non-violence. While many consider him as a leader, politician, social reformer, revolutionary, etc. we must remember that he was certainly not a saint. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, a great mystic of the 19th Century, a contemporary of Gandhiji used to tell "There is no harm in teaching others if the preacher has a commission from the Lord. Nobody can confound a preacher who teaches people after having received the command of God. Getting a ray of light from the goddess of learning, a man becomes so powerful that before him big scholars seem mere earthworms."

 

Gandhiji on non-violence - A few quotes :

" I have no message to give except this that there is no deliverance for any people on this earth or for all the people of this earth except through truth and nonviolence in every walk of life without any exceptions.

I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature....

But I do not believe India to be helpless....I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature....Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

It takes a fairly strenuous course of training to attain to a mental state of nonviolence. 

"

His above statements show that Gandhiji's idea of non-violence was not mere passive nor of blind faith. Rather he did understood the boundaries of practicing non-violence as against being well established in non-violence. However, did he use this discrimination under all circumstances of his life? 

 

Swami Vivekananda on non-violence:

    Swamiji left his mortals well before Gandhiji stepped back in India for the freedom struggle. During his visit to Belur Math, Kolkata, on 6th February 1921, Gandhi ji acknowledged that the study of Swami Vivekananda’s writings had increased his love for Bharatha a thousand fold. While Gandhiji was the seeker of truth, Swamiji  was the seer of truth, the Rishi! Here's what Swami Vivekananda has to say about non-violence:   "The karma-yogi is the man who understands that the highest ideal is non-resistance, and who also knows that this non-resistance is the highest manifestation of power; but he knows, too, that what is called the resisting of evil is a step on the way towards the manifestation of this highest power, namely, non-resistance. Before reaching this highest ideal man's duty is to resist evil. Let him work, let him fight, let him strike straight from the shoulder. Then only, when he has gained the power to resist, will non-resistance be a virtue."   

 The phrase - Ahimsa Paramo Dharmaha has become quite popular during or after the life of Gandhiji. Here's an excerpts from the book, 'Talks with Swami Vivekananda'

Disciple: Does the taking of fish and meat give strength? Why do Buddhism and Vaishnavism preach ” — Non-killing is the highest virtue”?

Swamiji: Buddhism and Vaishnavism are not two different things. During the decline of Buddhism in India, Hinduism took from her a few cardinal tenets of conduct and made them her own, and these have now come to be known as Vaishnavism. The Buddhist tenet, “Non-killing is supreme virtue”, is very good, but in trying to enforce it upon all by legislation without paying any heed to the capacities of the people at large, Buddhism has brought ruin upon India. I have come across many a “religious heron(referring to a fable - 'The heron and the crab' to mean hypocrites)"! in India, who fed ants with sugar, and at the same time would not hesitate to bring ruin on his own brother for the sake of “filthy lucre”! (1898)

 

The difference of the methods of the seeker and the seer:

As seen in Gandhiji's statements on non-violence, in the last but one section above about his quotes, Gandhiji had the view that Bharatha was not in state of helplessness. Read the context of his statements in his The doctrine of the Sword (particularly, the second, third and fourth paras). You will notice that Gandhiji is quite ambitious with his expectations from Bharatha. Leave alone at his times, do you think we as the majority of the masses of Bharatha are in a condition that meets his expectations even in 2020?

Well, while Swamiji as an unknown wandering monk went from north to south and from east to west of Bharatha before going to the west, he witnessed the miserable state in comparison to the glorious past. After his triumphant success at the parliament of religions, he toured lecturing highest ideas of Bharatha - the ideas of Vedanta. Not only so, he even made a handful of disciples experience a sample of his teachings too. However, after he returned, he neither took lessons on Vedanta or meditation classes, nor did he dictate what should they do and what they should not do for the freedom struggle. He did not put forth one idea and asked everyone to follow it or to raise to the expectations of that idea. In his entire lectures from Columbo to Almora you will notice that he wanted to bring back the confidence of the masses of Bharatha in their roots, united them in-spite of all the various differences among the masses. Swamiji, in his book called "The East and West" explains what should be the method for the ordinary people like us. An article in this blog site - "Dharma and Mukti" picks up these lessons from his book.

While, Gandhiji did mention that the non-violence is the root of Hinduism. now we know that we are still too far from making it a reality in our everyday walk of life. What should happen well before one becomes eligible to even think of non-violence? Let me draw your attention to the words of Swami Vivekananda from the platform of Madraas ( Today's Chennai ) :

"In Bharatha, religious life forms the center, the keynote of the whole music of national life. ... You must make all and everything work through that vitality of your religion. ... Before flooding Bharatha with socialistic or political ideas, first deluge the land with spiritual ideas. The first work that demands our attention is that the most wonderful thoughts confined in our Upanishads, in our scriptures, in our Puranas must be brought out."

 And today, if you carefully look back into the history of pre and post independence, you will notice the effect of the non-violence (of the weak) as a religion! With the name "Gandhi" and non-violence, there has been more injustice in this country than anywhere else. In the context of our discussion, the Govt's introducing of the word called "Secular" in the constitution as an amendment ensured that the confidence of particularly, the Hindus about their own culture and scriptures as well as the glory of their past is completely wiped out. I still remember vividly that the principal of my school explaining the idea of this word in our school assembly and listing down what we should do and what we should not, in the school! The secularity has only been a formation of a new religion - a doctrine of the then Govt that introduced it than making any real sense of the word! The word "Secularism", as per dictionary, means - "the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions." Whereas, to that Govt, it only meant to not only give complete freedom to all religions except Hindu religious institutions but also support them from the funds collected from the Hindu religious institutions - the Temples! Does that make any sense of the word "Secular"?? I might be an illiterate as far as the workings of the law is concerned. However, lets see which law expert can clarify the doubt of this illiterate: "Isn't it contradicting to say that we are secular nation and then identify and separate out the minorities based on religion?" To me its most embarrassing for a nation to keep such a contradiction in a constitution! Every year, we celebrate Gandhi Jayanti who preached non-violence which is at the root of Hinduism and asked the entire Bharatha to follow it irrespective of caste or religion to which we belong to. However, the Govt. led by the person having Gandhi as the last name amends the word 'Secular' in the constitution that prevents from knowing anything about the glory of its land - The root of Hinduism - its scriptures as part of the Education system! How deceitful! As if that's not enough there is high degree of religious conversions of Hindus happening even today at certain parts of the country, for example, Tamilnadu and Kerala. Collectively looking at the happenings, it only leads me to wonder if through such laws that just like the Britishers, our Govt made full use of non-violence of the weak to only ensure the Hindus loose confidence in their own culture and history that they have to undergo religious conversions? More on religions later. For now, our focus is on the limitations of the methods of an un-realized persons (of truth, like Gandhi ji) and its long term impacts on the society.

    In comparison to the workings of the subtlety of nature, Gandhiji seemed to be in too hurry -    

     "However, being a practical man, I do not wait till India recognizes the practicability of the spiritual life in the political world. India considers herself to be powerless and paralyzed before the machine guns, the tanks and the airplanes of the English, and takes up non-co-operation out of her weakness. It must still serve the same purpose, namely, bring her delivery from the crushing weight of British injustice, if a sufficient number of people practice it.".  - Gandhi ji

On the contrary, look at how Swamiji looked upon the situation -

"What a pity! We have not yet developed a high grade of civilization, and in spite of this our educated Babus want the British to hand over the government to them to manage! It makes me laugh and cry as well. Well, where is that martial spirit which at the very outset, requires one to know how to serve and obey, and to practice self-restraint! The martial spirit is not self-assertion but self-sacrifice. One must be ready to advance and lay down one's life at the word of command, before he can command the hearts and lives of others. One must sacrifice himself first. -Swami Vivekananda

This decision and its implementation by Gandhiji - to make use of the weak to get the freedom did contribute to a good extent in bringing masses together against the injustice, towards freedom struggle. However, it also had to pay the price! He could not stop the killings of millions of people either during the WW-II or during the massacre of Hindus by the Muslim Jihadis. Finally, unlike Buddha, he could not even influence the one who came to kill him too. It shows the utter failure of his ideology as well as his capability. The saga has only continued till date with people thinking "Its OK", "I don't care", "what luck and pleasure is in store for me.", "Trouble is happening to someone else, not me, am safe.", "I pay tax, so, I should get all benefits from the Govt.", etc.

Where did Gandhiji Stumble as a seeker?

Lets attempt an experiment - for a moment, hypothetically, let me raise Gandhiji himself to a much higher state of being than what he was - to the rank of Gauthama Buddha. Things would have been far easier for him to deal with. Isn't it? Further, let us consider that, that "sufficient number of people practicing it" whom Gandhiji referred, also are of the rank of the Buddha.

Yes, it would have then possible that they as a collective group in cooperation among each other could have not only got rid of British in just a moment, but also stopped the WW-II plus convinced Jinnah and rest of the AIML too. Do we know the power of collective consciousness? Such a power formed from a large group of ordinary people itself can do wonders and miracles in this world - There are several experiments being carried out across the world today. Having said so, what would be the effect if sufficient number of Buddhas joined together for one common cause? But alas, it was not a possibility for Gandhiji himself to be of the rank of Buddha in his entire life (no doubt, though he was much advanced compared to many of us 🙏). Now, what to say about the masses of Bharatha? From the above statements of Gandhiji, he knew the practicality of the masses of Bharatha. Not only so, he was silent during many decisions that were taken against his own wish and the wish of majority of Bharathiyas. More on that later. Yet, on many occasions, he stuck to his idea of non-violence principle just like the Bheeshma to his Dharma. On the other hand, here's how Buddha dealt with his circumstances - On his journey in search of truth, leave alone human killings, he even convinced the king Bimbasara, to stop the sacrifice of the lambs. King stopped the killing ceremony and invited Siddhartha to stay and teach his people. Now, look at the approach of Siddhartha as a seeker of truth - he declined, as he had not yet found the truth he was seeking. And only after he was enlightened, became buddha, that he took up the task of guiding and leading the masses. Whereas Gandhiji seemed to be sucked up by the responsibility of showing a new path to the world that he himself was yet to find. When General Cariappa (later Field Marshal) asked Gandhiji, "Please guide us, how can soldiers learn non-violence without affecting their duty." Gandhiji closed his eyes and stretched his right arm. "I am also searching for an answer to this in darkness. ..."

 Lets look at how Swamiji dealt with the situation: "They (reformers) want to reform only little bits. I want root-and-branch reform. Where we differ is in the method. Theirs is the method of destruction, mine is that of construction. I do not believe in reform; I believe in growth.  ... Feed the national life with the fuel it wants, but the growth is its own; none can dictate its growth to it."

     We will not understand what Swamiji meant here, unless we ask ourselves the question, - "Why did he called reformers' methods as the method of destruction?" The reformers approach is that of symptomatic treatment, just like allopathic medical system. You see a problem. Observe its symptoms and fix those symptoms somehow. When Gandhiji said "India takes up non-co-operation out of her weakness", It is like saying, "even if the non-cooperation is out of the weakness that is still fine. We should first somehow get rid of the British. We will deal with the weaknesses part later on. " - Symptomatic treatment! And we the masses of this nation seem to be still confused about our identity itself as one nation, leave alone getting rid of the weaknesses, thanks to the governments right from the first prime mnister, upto 70 years post independence. In his process of fighting the problem at hand, he (accidentally?) seems to have started a new (problem?) religion called non-violence (of the weak) that he himself quotes: 

"I am not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist. The religion of non-violence is not meant merely for the Rishis and saints. It is meant for the common people as well."

Non-violence (of the weak) as a religion

We will try to analyze his practicality in a moment. Before that, lets look at the narrowness of the modern religions that is born since the last two thousand years. These religions without any exception is limited to a certain specific belief influenced by space and time. Gandhiji says, "Non-violence is the law forever, of our species." Another man says his religion and methods including killing the non-believers in his religion is the only law forever. Yet another man says the god he came across is the only god and the savior. The form or formlessness of the god that he/she experienced is the only truth. These are the men who having inspired ( at times out of control of one's own nature, too ) by their experience at their respective stage of human excellence, assumed their experience to be the only reality and dictated rest of the humanity and influenced them in that direction. If one has the broadness of the heart to look at the history, one will understand, these tools or the methods (of the respective religion) will suite certain space (or mass of people) and time (for certain circumstances) only. It is not out of the way to mention that the uniqueness of "Sanathana Dharma" which is referred to by many as Hinduism is not a religion itself but has gone through the test of time of various experimentation, and out of the collective experiences, it understood the all-encompassing reality of universal harmony in which the whole world is considered as one family, Such conclusions were drawn when the rest of the humanity was still in its cradle. And it has solutions to the problems of today's generation too. Having said so, it is needless to say that it has all the necessary lessons about the path that ultimately leads us to be well established in non-violence, provided one has the patience and focus to first understand, then to realize the goal and then everything else.  However, Gandhiji unfortunately was not in the situation to systematically go through the learning and understanding of this vastness and depth of this knowledge. I shall take up the details of the views of the Sanathana Dharma about a religion in another article, if possible.

Non-violence as a tool and its limitations:

Gandhiji used the idea of non-violence as a tool to get rid of the British from Bharatha. No doubt, today we know that since the time well before the first war of independence of 1857 till the integration of various kingdoms into the constitution of Bharatha post independence, there have been countless attempts to gain freedom from British rule by innumerable freedom fighters. An important phase of this struggle was the creation of political establishment that worked in opposition to British's constitutional reforms such as Rowlatt Acts, etc. Gandhiji led this establishment which was then referred to as the  National Congress (started by AO Hume in 1885). The limitation (or as many call it - contradiction) of Gandhiji's non-violence as a tool for freedom struggle showed up almost everywhere right from the Khilafat Movement to WW-II. In the case of the latter, he encouraged Bharathiyas to join the British army to support them in the war, with the intension of bargaining with them for Bharath's freedom only to be fooled by the British, not willing to quit Bharatha, on the other hand. Another failure of his idea of non-violence as a tool was at the time of Partitioning. Gandhiji did every bit to appease Jinnah and his followers / supporters. The appeasement policy that Gandhiji started towards Jinnah has continued even today by the leaders on entire Muslim community! Probably this is the only (utterly failed and inappropriate) idea that they have taken up seriously from Gandhiji. Compromising on ideal was also seen while choosing the first prime minister. In spite of the majority (12 out of 15; where remaining three did not vote for anyone) of the congress committee nominated Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, Gandhiji made Nehru as the president of congress and in turn the first prime minister of the Independent Bharath! 

On the other hand, the non-violence as a tool has inspired not just in Bharatha but many countries for civil resistance or non-violent protests against injustices towards citizens. 

So, It is clear that while it worked in certain cases, it had its limitations and impractical at several instances. A tool is a tool. Its foolish to use an empty hand where a knife is meant to be used. General Carriappa seemed to have understood this well - "Today non violence is not effective in India. It is only a strong army which can give importance to India". About non-violence, in the context of war, he explained, "Soldiers are the first to hate war; not because of the danger and the terrors of war-field; but because no conflict is ever solved by war. ..."

Religious Harmony and Gandhiji:

    When we discussed about Bhagavad Gita above, we saw a passage taken from his address in NewDelhi in 1947. Now is the time to analyze the first half of the passage. A clear analysis of that passage is the key to resolve the conflict that exists in the society about him even today. What does this statement tell us: "Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives."? Right from his coming back to India from South Africa and entering the freedom struggle, his attempt was to unite the Muslims in harmony with the rest of Bharatha. If there was any sincere attempt by Gandhiji to preach idea of non-violence to the world, its major contribution was in teaching the Jihadi Muslims the lessons of love. However, right from the period of his life, starting from Jinnah to genocide of Kashmiri Pandits to Kargil war to attacks on Uri & Pulwama, every such effort of peace by Gandhiji and Bharatha in general has only been misused by the Jihadis and communists and their attempt has always been not only of separation but of expansion as well. The terrorist organizations have only increased in time. As per his own statements, Gandhiji considered Muslims to be of bullish nature as a result of their imperialistic expansion and that can only be pacified and overcome by showing them love and forgiveness. He also gave references saying at the time of certain Muslim rulers such as Harun-al- Rashid and Mamun(around 700 - 800AD) Islam was the most tolerant amongst the world’s religions. However, today we have a far better view of the history. Gandhiji tried his best to convince the muslims. Gandhiji's efforts and his attempts in pushing the masses of Hindus for their sacrifice of their life and honor against the Muslim riots - is it any less attempt of peace and love in the entire history of Humanity?? Even if the entire world is Islamized, will the peace ever be established. Its quite evident from the way the Muslim rulers both in Bharath and outside, fought among themselves, and had the fear of loosing their thrones due to other Muslim rulers. This situation explains that Gandhiji attempted the method of a parent pampering an adamant & a sly child. Bad parenting, indeed! His intentions was extraordinarily great. But the method/approach was too bad, too short sighted! By using the masses of Hindus to submit without resistance to the aggressions of the Muslims, on one side he let the aggressors to become more aggressive and on the other side, the timid to become more timid. His approach to bring balance was a total failure!  Some of the present day, intellectuals do consider this to be irresponsibility as a leader to impose such idea upon his subordinates. Just because it was easier for him to live the life of simplicity owing to his nature as an introvert, how sensible was it to force the idea of non-violence upon the rest of the Hindu community against armed violence? Just as extroverts needs extra effort to look within, the introverts find it hard to solve the practical problems of the external world such as the above mentioned societal issues. Therefore, I say that his very idea itself was inappropriate and impractical.

An example of Sri Ramakrishna lessons of moderation to his disciples. The picture above shows the (horizontal) line of moderation/assertion at the center.  higher up the line is aggressiveness, below is that of being timid.

Look at a wonderful example as illustrated above, from the life of Sri Ramakrishna, on how he brought about the balance between the aggressive and the timid disciples. In the modern corporate world, this method of balancing is referred to as being assertive. Often in the team meetings, there will be heated discussion and arguments owing to the aggressive nature of the team members. In such cases, the managers moderates the discussion by advising them to be assertive with the help of reasoning and facts. Similarly, there are team members who do not take part in the discussion at all even when they need to, owing to their timid/shy/soft nature. Again, the managers ask them to be assertive - make their voice heard with facts. Yet, another lesson one might certainly consider is about the authority with which one leads people. Here, both the disciples had considered and accepted Sri Ramakrishna as the authority to teach lessons, mend them, and guide them through their life. Whereas, in case of Gandhiji, when he attempted to make them interpret Quran in a particular way, the Muslims object to it. Though in the argument, he rejected the claim of Maulvis to give a final interpretation to the message of the Mohamed, who accepted this rejection, leave alone at that time, even now? And yet, Gandhiji let the massacres' of Hindus to happen, totally failing to persuade the Muslims to understand and interpret the Quran the way he expected! Complete lack of authority! With respect to understanding Gandhiji's dealing with Hindus vs Muslims one should consider and study about the life and teachings of several saints and mystics of his contemporary who held the authority on the given subject. For ex., Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa of the north, Sage Ramana Maharshi, Swami Chandrashekhara Bharathi III (Mahaperiyava), of the south and several others. 

        Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa got initiated into Islam and practiced it devotedly and attained to its perfection. Thus did he describe his mentality at this period: ‘Then I used to repeat the name of Allah, wear my cloth in the fashion of the Mohammedans and recite the Namaz regularly. All Hindu ideas being wholly banished from the mind, not only did I not salute the Hindu gods, but I had no inclination even to visit them. After three days I realized the goal of that form of devotion.’ First of all he saw a radiant Person with a long beard and of grave appearance, and then his mind, passing through the realization of the Brahman with attributes, was finally absorbed in the Brahman without attributes. The very fact that he practiced Islam after attaining perfection in the Advaita makes it clear that only through this—the underlying basis of all faiths—can the Hindus and Mohammedans be united with each other. 

        A devotee of Mahaperiyava, Dr. Venkataraghavan once narrated an incident about how Mahaperiyava guided and blessed a Muslim lineman of Electricity Board, about the practice, number of times of Namaz as per Quran that even the Qazi and chief Qazi (whom, the lineman enquired about) didn't know. Not only so, the way he read the Quran in a perfect Arabic pronunciation was also amazing. 

        While we saw how the saints, religious leaders and seers looked upon the Muslims, from a political stand point also we should see how the leaders of our culture treated the Muslims. And who can be a better example than Chhathrapathi Shivaji! While Shivaji Maharaj, fought battles with Mughal rulers to establish Hindavi Swaraj, it was political in nature and not religious. He not only treated muslims and Islam with respect, but also had many Muslim soldiers and commanders of his army. 

        A friend of mine, a Hindu, once mentioned that having worked and lived in two Muslim countries for over 25 years did not see even a single undue incidents over the Hindus living there, unlike here in Bharatha and Pakistan! That's because the Muslims of those countries have matured enough over time since the middle age. Whether it is the ordinary Muslims or even the Maulvis, the necessary maturity is needed to understand and implement the teachings of the Quran for the harmony in a diverse global environment. 

        Whereas, Gandhiji's principles and approach of appeasing the Muslims only by considering that they are bullish in nature and wanting the Hindus to not resist the atrocities of the Jihadis and to succumb to it has only worsen and dimmed the possibility of maturing in their (of the masses) ideas of harmony and unity in diversity!

Hindus:

I need to make a point clear here about the word Hindus. Here's what Swami Vivekananda mentioned about who are the Hindus: 

"for you may mark that all the people who live on this side of Indus in modern times do not follow the same religoin as they did in ancient times. The word, therefore convers not only Hindus proper, but Mohammedans, Christians, Jains and other people who live in Bharatha." Swamiji referred to the proper Hindus as Vendantists, followers of Vedanta. Today many refer to them also as Sanathanis - Those who belong to Sanathana Dharma

So, that means, no matter which religious background one belongs to, all those who follow and share the traditions and culture of Bharatha or Hindusthan can be referred to as Hindus. Whether it is the lack of knowledge about their own history and culture by the Hindus, expansion of Islam by Jihadis or Christianity by the christian missionaries or the communism of China,  if their ignorance, blind faiths and narrowness or the false idea can be given up, the world naturally becomes the place of peace, harmony, and the universal brotherhood of all religions - A natural expression of non-violence. In the context of Gandhiji's unique efforts in particular, I would like to point out again, what Arif Mohommad said, that if Muslims can given up the Mulla's Islam and embrace Alla's Islam, they will naturally live the life of peace and harmony with rest of Bharatha. After all, the ancestors of the muslims of this land were verily the Hindus. To be precise, Vedantists! There are plenty of examples of the muslims who have lived a wonderful life of harmony embracing not only the tradition and culture of Bharatha but also of the scriptures such as Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, etc. along with Quran. Those are the folks who understood the secret of Hindu scriptures and its tradition, that it only helps them to become a better Muslim, to become closer to Allah and his grace than by embracing the foolish ideas of Jihad and 72 virgins that leads one to become carnal, worthless human beings here and hereafter. The examples of the people of the past who represented positivity and harmony needs to be consistently put in front of the Muslim community. That will make Gandhiji's efforts a worthwhile 😉 Instead of this, the govts that have come and gone since last 70 years, only followed the appeasement logic thereby encouraging the Jihadi idea than any harmony. It is quite clear from his biography, that Gandhiji did not spend much time in studying the scriptures and the history of his own religion and culture much less about other religions, their history, culture and psychology. If only could he have spent sufficient time in these, in my opinion, he could have handled the situations much better! 

And as far as the proper Hindus are concerned, whether it was Gandhiji or Swamiji, they both shared one common thought - that the Hindus needs to gain in their strength in every aspect - Whether it is their knowledge & faith in the ancient scriptures of Bharatha - the Bhagavadgita and Upanishads, or in the ideas of Spirituality or Yoga or in their communities entire unity as one spiritual power house. The articles referred above such as Stages of Human Excellence or Dharma and Mukti are small attempts to set the context  of today's rationale mind's experience of human excellence in reference to the ancient scriptures' relevance. Only when we know where we stand now, that we can gauge the direction and distance to reach our destination (say, of becoming the Buddha, as per Gandhiji's expectation 😉 ) as well as put the required efforts in that direction. Isn't it?

Different facets (in reality, today) of "Non-violence of the weak":

Today, if you ask any average Bharathiya about Patriotism, he says "Patriotism is in my heart. What is the need to express it out?" It is so deep in his heart that he himself cannot access it! If there is terror attack or the riots, he says all he knows is that he loves his country and its people. And he has nothing to do with any terrorism anywhere. If you ask him about his contribution to his nation, he says, I have paid enough tax what else do I need to give." If you say that there are so many poor people out there if he can do a bit of contribution. He says he has paid tax and the Govt should provide not only to the poor but to him also, "free hospitals and free education." To such a person, country is a business - a deal between the govt and himself. He claims that he is still patriotic at heart and loves his country and its people!

    Gandhiji acknowledged the cowardice, the weak, and the miserable condition of the masses of Bharatha and used itself as a tool to fight the British called as non-violence of the weak. However, the Bharatiyas continued to be cowards and weak assuming itself to be the ideal (as if set forth by Gandhiji) to be followed.

    Let us do our bit in making the Ramarajya of Gandhiji a reality (not the 'non-violence of the weak' as we have been doing) in which all religions live in harmony and the spirituality be the backbone of Bharatha. Only then, Bharatha raises in its prosperity, but also lead the world towards harmony and prosperity of humanity.

Who got the freedom to Bharatha from British?

One must bow down unconditionally and be inspired by the contribution of every freedom fighter including Gandhiji in whatever ways in which they contributed for freedom struggle. For a quick example, if you closely observe and reason out how Subhas Chandra Bose looked upon Gandhi ji, its clear that he respected Gandhiji for whatever path Gandhiji had chosen and at the same time convinced and clear about the path he had chosen. This is very clear from his address - "Nobody would be more happy than ourselves if by any chance our countrymen at home should succeed in liberating themselves through their own efforts or by any chance, the British Government accepts your `Quit India' resolution and gives effect to it. We are, however proceeding on the assumption that neither of the above is possible and that a struggle is inevitable.". So, including Gandhiji, its just that different freedom fighters assumed and approached freedom with different paths/methods that they found it appropriate. No matter which path, the goal of everyone was one - Freedom from the British rule. Its only we, the fools debate endlessly that its because of his/her leader that we got the freedom! It reminds me of a story in which once Rama and Shiva fought with each other and the war stopped in a while and their respect for each other continued as before. However, even to this day their respective followers, that is, Vanaras and deamons, continue to fight with each other calling their lord to be the supreme 😂   Its high time we raise above the emotions and biases while analyzing the facts. And ONLY after we have concluded about the facts as well as the right path of next action, we might exercise our emotions to channelize our strength in the chosen direction/path of action. 

Conclusion: 

Let me summarize the whole discussion we had so far:

1. Gandhiji hardly understood about our scriptures and history including Bhagavad Gita! He considered Bhagavad Gita to be a set of commandments just like abrahamic texts such as Bible & Quran.
2. True to his idea and belief about Bhagavad Gita to be at the mental plane, his idea of non-violence and being practical idealist, also remained at the mental plane only when it comes to implementing it and preaching it to the masses. 
3. His ideal of non-violence only remained in argumentation which he was good at. Now we have also understood that the similarities with Bheeshma with respect to Gandhiji not deviating from his non-violence principle, is only at the mental plane!!
4. He claimed to be practical idealist. However, 
• he himself compromised on it when he sent our men to fight for britishers, against the ideal of non-violence.
• In support of Muslims's violence, he found excuses saying they are bullish natured so appease them on one hand and fully allow them to use violence.
• Chose Nehru as the president of congress party and in turn first prime minister, in spite of majority of the committees nominating Patel.
5. When he himself totally failed to be practical idealist, he expected the masses of Hindus only to follow practical Idealism of non-violence.
6. Between the ideal of non-violence and solving problem at hand, When it comes to advocating non-violence to the masses, he always prioritized solving the problem at hand the way he wanted to, irrespective of anything else including the ideal of non-violence.
7. We saw by examples of great men, on how one should lead the life, far from the limitations of Gandhiji's principles and ideals.
8. We also saw the approach of moderation to maintain religious harmony. And also we learnt that depending on the context, the word Hindu includes all Bharathiyas including Muslims and Christians.
9. Hindus have a great weakness of blindly following anyone who appear as saintly. They have lost the ability to question, reason out before acceptence. 
10. Its clear that the greatest weakness of the Hindus is in not knowing nor have the thirst to know their own scriptures and their own history

While I bow down to this man, a seeker of truth, a freedom fighter, a person of elevated being than many of us, his attempt to realize the truth, I reject outright Gandhiji as a role model or his principles based on non-violence to be followed unconditionally!

Final watchword, inspired by the statement made by Swami Vivekananda as well as the leadership of Chhathrapathi Shivaji - "Anything that makes you or the nation weak, physically, mentally, spiritually as well as socially, geographically, demographically and politically, ... reject as poison!!!"

Stages of human excellence

 

 अज्ञानतिमिरान्धस्य ज्ञानाञ्जनशालाकया ।
चक्षुरुन्मीलितं येन तस्मै श्रीगुरवे नमः

Ajnyaana-Timira-Andhasya Jnyaana-[Aa]n.jana-Shaalaakayaa |
Cakssur-Unmiilitam Yena Tasmai Shrii-Gurave Namah [Guru Suktham; Verse 3]

The one Who Removes the Darkness of Ignorance from our Blind (Inner) Eyes by applying the Collyrium of the Light of Knowledge. By Whom our (Inner) Eyes are Opened; Salutations to that Guru.

 

There are different stages of human excellence. Each human being is born into one stage or the other. One must act according to the stage / level / class to which one belongs to and move upwards from there. From one stage to another, there is no written examination conducted by an examiner. The life itself is the examiner and the challenges we face are the question paper and therefore it is a continuous process. Crossing from the initial stage to the last stage might happen all in the same life or each stage taking an entire lifetime in achieving the goal of the respective stage alone. All this depends on various factors which itself becomes an ocean of learning and is out of scope of our discussion here. This article is meant to just present the various stages in human excellence. Only for our easy 

• reference, 
• understanding, 
• remembering or even for a 
• comparative study of various subjects involving human excellence from a broader perspective, 

this article presents the various stages of human excellence in terms of different classes just like our schooling system. Following is a presentation of classes - class sub-zero (like the kindergarten in schools ) and class one to class seven. With the ocean of knowledge available at our disposal, we often get lost in pursuit of the eternal truth. This article may be used as a very high level, rough yard stick to understand where we are and where we need to head towards, both as individuals as well as a society. So, to make it simple, I have referred to only meditation (part of Raja yoga) as the means and omitted other types of yoga paths such as Bhakthi yoga, Karma yoga, Jnana yoga. This yard stick doesn't deal the good vs bad in terms of personalities. For example, don't make the mistake of assuming that the all the bad people belong to sub-sero and all good people belong to class 1 to 7. These stages have nothing to do with good vs bad. For ex., Ravana might have belonged somewhere around class 4 or 5.

 

class sub-zero: Just as the babies need care and affection by the elders, people who cannot help themselves belong to this class. Those who are in the asylum, bed-ridden, deeply dipressed, etc. are the examples of such people who require external help to improve their well-being and become a better human beings.

 

class zero: People belonging to this class will have obstacles that they need to be tackling before they can get into the mode of Sadhana. The obstacles might be within them or external. That doesn't mean the obstacles doesn't exist in other classes. However, the obstacles are so high that the primary qualification for any saadhana of being consistent in the efforts is not met. In all other classes, the person is capable of practicing consistently at least. The obstacles here are such as 

• Serious illnesses, 
• Physiological, psychological and other forms of defectiveness my birth, 
• Tendencies that drags them down and away from the path of sadhana in-spite of best of the efforts, 
• Addictions of all kinds, 
• Strong afflictions towards materialistic possessions, 
• Strong belief in the wrong ideas away from the reality.

 So, getting out of the obstacles itself becomes the goal of such people.

class one: People in this category and the previous forms the major chunk of the society today. Such people are capable of doing sadhana with a bit of guidance and motivation who can contribute to the progress of the society. It is also these people who often get mislead or those who lead the life of laziness or who become the burden ( causes dis-harmony ) of the society. These are also the people with false beliefs and laziness who take the society to deterioration. In other words, they are the ones who make or break the society. 

    And there are some in this class, who are too enthusiastic about their sadhana (either being bothered by the cercumstances within or outside of themselves. Or due to too much of influence from their surroundings). As far as sadhana or human excellence is concerned, one should not concern themselves much about achieving moksha, god/self realization as far as goal is concerned. Likewise, should also not get into the mode of giving up their duties with the intention of doing "severe" meditation, etc. Nor should they concern or debate too much on whether god exists, or not.  This doesn't mean you should not believe in god's existence at all. If you believe in a god, do what is necessary that deems fit for that belief. But that should not be the only occupation. One should always remember this - blind faith has its sharp limitations no matter to which community one belongs to. It can lead the individual and the society astray. Anywhere from five minutes to an hour a day of one's involvement of any form of yogic practices should be good enough - whether doing bhajans or sit in meditation. As far as one's occupation is concerned, one should act according to one's own swadharma. Be good and do good - to oneself, one's own family, the society to which one belongs to and to the nation. 

     The key learning, in this class is to achive consistency and being joyfull through out their journey of sadhana. And the goal should be to do their actions efficiently.

class two: Having well established with your actions with efficiency, now learn the art of giving up the fruits of actions. However, its not easy to give up the fruits of action just like that. So, have faith that God exist (presence of something called 'God' - Because, still at this stage, one has not experienced or realized anything about God yet). And (like Arjuna) offer all your actions to Me. Thus your mind becomes purified. Purification of the mind is the final Goal at this stage.

class three: Having purified your mind, you are now eligible to practice meditation in silence. This doesn't mean that in earlier classes, you should never meditate. but it will only be one of the activities like you eat, drink and recreation - anywhere from ten minutes to one hour each day depending on one's capacity. Whereas in this stage, it means meditation can be the only occupation of the person giving up all other mundane activities - that is, one can sit in meditations for hours or even days at a stretch. That's because, its easier for your mind to just remain one pointed without much distractions. Here, there is no external distractions, however, one's own mind and body are the distractions when attempted to remain one pointed for a long period of time. Giving up the attachment to one's own body is the hardest. Many disciples of Sri Ramakrishna paramahansa, several saints, even Brother Lawrence are the examples of this class. The goal here is to tame your body and mind only to just remain in one state, one pointed respectively. 

 

class four: Having practiced such an extent that you can giveup the attachment to the body also, one is now eligible to attain the elightment of the object of meditation. Here, one has completely forgotton the presence of one's own body. Only the experience of the mind remains. May be, Narendranath Datta ( who later became Swami Vivekananda ) was of this class when he came to Sri Ramakrishna. He was a dhyana (meditation) siddha by birth. While Sri Ramakrishna asked his disciples to practice devotion to the God, and gave certain mantras to certain aspirants / disciples based on their innert nature, upon seeing Narendra, he was eager to make him experience the higest realization. Here, one can no doubt forget the body such that only the mind remains, however, it is still having variety of experiences, the goal is to make the mind experience the oneness with the object of meditation - That is only one experience of the mind - That is called God realization. Samadhi 

class five: Having realized the God with form - the experience of just one form just once, now one is eligible to (a) experience the presence of God whenever one wishes, (b) communicate with not just one form, but with different forms of God. Sri Ramakrishna used to walk and talk along with Goddess Kali when he used to go out to pluck flowers in the garden, early morning. He could commune with Her whenever he wished so. He made Narendranath experience the presence of goddess with form. Such people are called saints and acharyas. 

class six: Having thoroughly established with experiencing the God with form, now one is ready to experience the formless. Where one not only forgets the body, even the mind is stopped, disappears. Even the form doesn't exist. What remains is the Atman. Self realization. It is here that one will know the answer to the question 'who am I'. Nirvikalpa Samadhi, The ultimate Knowledge. Such people are called the acharyas. It is also in the culmination of this stage, that the ego is completely dissolved.

class seven: Having reazlized that I am neither the body nor the mind, one will now becomes eligible to see the same Atman everywhere.  This is called Vignana. The application of the knowledge. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa used to be in this state all the time. He used to give an example of the straircase leading to the terrace. Having climbed to the terrace, one will then know that the same meterial with which terrace is made, the same is used to make the ground and stairs too. Such people are called Jeenvan Mukta - Liberated in the very life itself ( as against to those who attain liberation through giving up the body. )

~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~

Some notes:
Un-touchability, religious dominance and other evils of society are all the possessions of classes zero and one; at most a few exceptions in class two. Those who belong to the rest of the classes have always did their best to unite the people and lead the life of harmony. When we realize where we stand against the remaining stages of human existence, we will become humble. Don't we?

The same principle applies to every stage - of silencing and narrowing the focus of the mind. Higher the class, more the silence of the mind. The activity naturally reduces as one progresses from one class to another. The most important (effortful) learning of class one to maintain consistency and joy becomes the very nature of the person from class five and above. 😊

 Also, an important aspect to remember is that there is certainly a possibility that a person might come down from a higher to a lower class, more than once in the lifetime depending on various circumstances. One needs to handle the situation to which one belongs to any given time.

Last but not the least, there is another class of persons who are referred to as avatharas who are beyond all these stages. May be class eight 😀 There is enough for us to consider for our own growth anyway.

~ ~ ~ ~ 🙏 ~ ~ ~ ~