Questions Hindus must pose...

As a tradition that I am soaked in "H'm" is something that I like thinking with. Which is not to say that I see as any sort of unified tradition or as an Ism. In the public sphere, it may be treated as one, by some more intense kinds of followers, but that 'as such' is not my interest, though it informs my thinking about H'm.

With this as a sort of starting idiom, I find it wonderful to plunge into all other forms of religious and non religious thought, perhaps in a sense loosing the very category of H'm which perhaps was never there from the beginning!

As against the wonderful tradition of Christianity, which combines effectively with modern reason and science is some of its forms, what is H'm relation and response to modern times. Apart from somewhat simplistic celebrations of seeing all science in ancient Hindu thought?

Of this too is symptomatic of the particular position of Hinduism. As a spiritual tradition that was concerned with direct encounter with truth and reality it does offer another kind of access to objective truth (objective not as 'object' related). in this manner H'm is both contesting and in agreement with science. That discoveries in recent science seem to agree with several eastern knowledges is not incidental surely. But how then can Vedantic forms of H'm work with science and more importantly with democracy, equality, emancipation and justice? Can they at all? In sofar as H'm and even Buddhism to some extent see what happens in the world as a larger working of destiny, cause and effect and the natural ebb and flow of consciousness what form of intervention can they take. How does the image of un-grounded, creative, modern man work with an approach that effaces the social, wordly self? How also does H'm seem to talk quite comfortably with the well-to-do, saying that wealth can co-exist with spiritual life - that those with money can share it and thus spread the fruits of wealth in the world? How is it that Hinduism doesn't seem to propound simple, ethical living? simple living is immediately associated with ascetic withdrawal. there is an acceptance that 'in-the-world' one must lives with the elements, with the gunas, with imperfection, with inequality, war and violence? Why for instance does Krishna see War to be Arjuna's legitimate duty and path to glory? (of course, we know that this is also somewhat rhetorical, one of the many means of convincing used by Krishna; and also when seen allegorically the war can be seen as an inner war. Yet the fact remains). How, when we have different ideas of people at different levels of spiritual development, can we treat all in the same manner?

This is not to deny that there is a strong bhakti tradition etc.. wherein it is clear that spiritual attainment and ability and even propensity at birth has little to do with caste or family background. and in fact this is not just the bhakti tradition but perhaps was always so... Then is it that we just interpreted Hinduism very selectively in modern times? Obviously, social justice was not an explicit concern in earlier Hinduism as far as we know. But perhaps that is the form of the tradition which in one sense IS quite individualistic? those who were interested in spiritual inquiry were always a class of their own. but precisely this, again meant that while in-the-world, one would remain caught in a system of distinction. But yet again, this realm was one of Maya and worldly attachment, which itself without fail will create gunas, difference, dispersion, inequality.

Meanwhile, I wonder, and think that there may be a strong possibility to bring together ideas of strong freedom and moving away from social norms in Hindu liberal thought and modernity that posits not paternalistic, rights based, social justice based liberalism but precisely a post-rights bases concept of universal man. Of course this is a tall idea, and perhaps a bit conceited. Because, i do think that this cannot be done without infusing ethical thinking in Hinduism - something that is mostly in thin supply today. in an unequal world, the rich hindu or the middle class hindu must accept that his wealth mostly does not come without a price to someone else, that he must not simply celebrate merit or hard work without looking into the actual content of his work. without this, the talk of the oneness of all consciousness seems somewhat hollow.

more later...

Meanwhile how does one understand the strong sense of the rasa of life, the image of Shiva who is the highest in the spiritual domain but yet precisely the god of dance, music, is less ritualistic and lives with snakes and sundry spirits and ghosts and in graveyards. At once relating to death and life, to rasa and yet a victorious against kaama. Is not rasa, also indicating that real spiritual understanding does not hold by distinctions, even in-the-world? Shiva Bhaktas - for instance as shown in the recent Mahadev serial are actually simple and ethical even if they may be affluent. of course the recent serial comes in the context of modern ideas of social justice as well as a complex engagement with Christianity and Islam already having occoured historically. So is this a H'm already assimilated with the Others, that some fundamentalists are fighting? and then havent they already lost the battle, because they precious religion is already, beautifully corrupted, assimilated? The magnanimous H'm that is attacked for engulfing the identity of all other religions, by several 'left-liberals', is also utterly infused with other sensibilities...? Can the ultimate assimilator escape this wonderful destiny? In the end as thinkers of H'm we can perhaps only talk of traditions of thought, that abound in this pantheon but not of any Ism that can or must be defended. Perhaps the only Ism that remains then does dissolve into world spirituality that conducts many conversations with science, reason and wit other religions.

Yet maybe some unique traditions, stem from its situated tendencies in the subcontinent. The form of spirituality that emanates from this churning, relates most strongly to what could be called psychological freedom - the ability of self awareness, watching, inquiry, that lays bare the working of the mind and flow of thought. Lays bare in utter simplicity - not through psychological categories but through a falling away of knots and complexity. Accompanied by an openness to love - for the self yes and also a generalised love, best not opposed to rasa (though not necessarily overtly relating to it) this allows a powerful grounding in the ungrounded self... form where the fears that relate to social distinction can slowly reduce. where one can relate to the world as, is commonly said in motivational messages these days, 'being yourself'. Where one behaves with people in a manner that welcomes them without judgement and thus also opens the boundaries that they have reconciled to live with... a free, alive, univeral human (and if fact beyond human too) relation is thus possible. 

The Only Real Education

I spend my day reading and thinking about the meaning of education, about how best are people taught and liberated, can anyone ever teach anyone, is education liberating at all or is it a mere socialisation.

I read theorists who argue that teachers, academics and philosophers present knowledge as obscure and unreachable perpetuating the divide between the knower and the ignorant. I read other thinkers who want to free man, free him from the disciplinary practices that define truths for them and want man to finds other ways out of the truths that enframe him.

This restless energy sends us forth on journeys of emancipation. They are especially restless because now we are told that there is not truth to be found anyway. F celebrates the modern present in which man can invent himself again and again. With Man and not God as the center of this modern time, there are not moral bases to live life. Perhaps there never were. We then must strive to be free, but to what end!

A recent incident threw a very different light on this. In the death of a distant relative, one saw a related kind of pain and journey. At the death of a 92 year old man, his wife, who has been married to him since perhaps her teen years, is completely lost. They were both teachers in the village school, respected, disciplined and decently settled couple who lived all their life in their ancestral village home in Haryana. Their children are elsewhere and visit at intervals. The couple were traditional but close and very much in love and affectionate.

They were a couple typicial to the self-made, disciplined variety of those early 1900s in India. Their children are not like them - they are dissipated, taken to a more consumerist lifestyle. The village around them has changed over the years, overrun by nearby Delhi culture. The two teachers taught all their life. Our lady, was given to lay philosophising and also gave spontaneous talks on the Gita to women of the community. She always spoke a lot and was quite 'forward' for her times. Believing that children should do, marry as they please and study well and develop good minds and thoughts. She still thinks that way. Compelled to speak, perhaps more so now, to fill her immense pain and silence, she talks on. But now the positive and strong words, are mixed with slippages into helpless meaninglessness. The house that was kept in complete order earlier by her husband, as she sat with a recently semi-paralysed body, is now taken over by her children and grandchildren. 'Sacred' places that were not mishandled by others are now helter skelter. She faces a life that is lonlier and will most probably not be on her terms. As the village moves along, although remembering the well-regarded couple, their teachings may have borne little fruit. Perhaps some seeds lie somewhere, slowly waiting their time. But for her, for now, the teaching is turned back on herself.

"I used to give so many discourses and talks. Look now, i must give these teachings to myself now"! she exclaims. The soul in torture speaks of its own pain and its path in such clarity. But the pain remains yet.

Scribbles...

The world of words and ideas, or confessions and sharings, of advices and travel experiences is so proliferated. You can loose yourself in the becoming of others!

New Mythologies

I wonder what the latest spew of videos on the loving and non-violent behavior of animals towards humans and towards animals of other species mean?

Since some time on Whatsapp, facebook, youtube, there are videos of dogs and cats being friends, dogs teaching puppies to climb stairs, a pigeon passing titbits to a dog, a bear saving a crow and a dolphin rescuing a dog from a shark! Oddly, the camera is always already present in these wonderfully serendipitous discoveries.
Are they simply cleverly crafted videos? If so, why are we crafting these videos in this age? As humans display increasing violence in their own lives and natural tragedies, sometimes driven by human activity, pile up in daily news, is this our final refuge? To see animals doing unexpected acts of kindness, even against their own nature? Or are we actually forming new mythologies to recover modes of non-violence that can overcome difference - if a bear can rescue a crow, overcoming his 'nature' surely two religious communities can overcome their 'culture' and find common ground... Of course it is not as literal, but is there actually an exploration of a more fundamental common ground for togetherness in these 'real' myths? Are we remaking quietly, and in the most mundane way of sms and whatsapp forwards, a new sensibility?

If these videos are really real... then were they always real? and that with new technology we simply have learned and found means to capture them? in that case, how do we successfully find them and record them? In the video age, we seem to have an odd expectation and future driven life is it not? Where one is already thinking two steps ahead- I have the camera ready before my child does his first walk, or before my dog runs to nuzzle my cat! In its charismatically enigmatic way is life simply giving us the vision we have projected? In a more direct way, if these videos are real, then it means that the world was always a 'better' place than what our 'survival of the fittest' pop sociology indicated and that even humans could think of other models to design political and social life. Or can we actually even hazard the view that with humans going nuts, animals have decided to undergo a shift in consciousness?

All these are perhaps crazy ruminations, but the surreal-ness of these multiple videos leaves one willing to imagine the remotest possible. Perhaps my reading the news about the NASA's new successes with non-fuel satellite propellers is also pushing such wild theories! 

Whither

who are you
and who are we
do i read you right
and can u see thru me

i want to be close
but run back when i am
do i fear you
too near to you
or i cant remove my skin for you?

or do i really see
that this cant be
and this closeness i feel
cannot thus reveal

if that is so
again, who are we
can i come so close
and remain unchanged

How natural will be a return to nature?

Can we really live among nature, and yet remain exactly the modern, free thinking and liberal people that we as those who live in cities. This is not to say that there are not already a lot of people living with nature - either because they traditionally do or because they choose to.
Even so, I wonder at the sutble changes such  shift of venue will bring and even demand.

There must be a reason for instance why civilisations spread in the plains and why the mountains, world-over remain ways of escaping civilisation for a while. And why further, that those mountain dwellers who get exposed to the life of the plains, are transmuted forever, unable perhaps then to share the same vibrations with their hills that they hitherto did.

The plains then, seem to be the site of the establisment of cities. Cities, primarily, are spaces of visual sensousness. it can be argued that man, who seeks sensous pleasure in varied forms, finds the city to be one such place that leaves him secure, satisfied and yet safely seeking more, thus making cities the ever burgeouning grounds of opulence or or enterprise. This may explain further why the metro or the mall are conducive to the city. It may explain why, when i escape the city and begin to miss it after a while, I find solace in the mall.

If by going back to nature, man must forgo these means of directing his desireful energy, then will these mean that man will need to mutate into a different kind of being. No more will such a life give out a flaneur or art critic. The sense of distance from one's object of pleasure, seems to be central to city life. Wit such closeness to the land, how does man maintain the individualistic and free sense of humanness?

We may recognise what violence lies in this sensousness of city life and we may thus proceed to discover different ways of living and being. But, if we really sincerely take these step ahead, do we really know what mutations we are going to undergo?

Being free, thinking free, theorising free

Is sociology an inherently conservative discipline? Nisbet argues how its very inception is flavoured by the nostalgia for community and sacredity. Ranciere's book i am reading indicates that the new sociology emerges in France after the setbacks faced by the left. In this backdrop, argues Ranciere, does Bourdieu's work emerge - presenting to us a cynical explanation of inequality, leaving us almost trapped in its very existence. Of course, both these kinds of conservatisms are quite different, but perhaps share a common spirit.
I wonder (and this may appear cynical too, but i hope does not remain so) whether most grand theories and perspectives in the discipline are marked by a kind of conservatism. Rather, i think this word is insufficient, even misleading. I want to indicate a seeking of comfort in theories, categories that give us as intellectuals a means to explain the world around us. It makes us believe that we have access to a more exalted, a more secret understanding of the world. In this sense, is sociology, psychologically wanting? Is it driven less often by the higher emotions of wonder, humility and openness and more often by judgement and a missionary zeal? What do we know after all about non-sociological ways of explaining the world? What place can we give them? Are we not often in the business of indoctrination? What for instance does a term like 'patriarchy' do for us? Have we perhaps got stuck with the category, and not moved further on the paths of inquiry? Have we shaped our world on the basis of the very categories we formulated to explain it?
The attempt to explain the word around us, is a profound need for us. Most of our knowledges, our sciences, natural or social are attempts to do so. While, they could perhaps be empowering, they seem to be double edged. You never know when they begin to offer comforts, illusions. Taking us away from the real questions, leaving us fighting with misleading shadows...

A humble allowing...

Can a teacher teach? Can anything be taught? Is there anything to teach?

These are genuine questions. Even so I cannot think that this would lead us to a 'let us not teach' stand. And thus arises the question, what then is a position one can place oneself in, while being in an educative process? Of course, all this is perhaps only, theoretical dreaming, because the challenge of the classroom completely throws you open and leaves you vulnerable. That is perhaps one reason that teachers choose the strict posture. Vulnerability can be difficult to maintain and at times also counter productive. There are only few people I have read about who can be so, and mostly they seem to be people who are also very self-assured personalities and clear about their tasks for instance K or DH. Can we all be so? Ironically, these kind of people are sometimes quite stuck in their own ways.

Mostly those who are in doubt seem to be more open. And this perhaps gives us a pathway of a possible stand. That one not be very certain of one's certainties. For instance, don't we all know about patriarchy, about religious regressiveness versus modern ideas. About proper behaviour etc. Now I recall that in a school i spent time in, gender or ideas about gender issues in society were never taught. Of course, gender differentiation was minimal and the educative content was from a liberal standpoint. The school and the teachers however, never explicitly inculcated it and in fact true to the spirit of the school, questioned a simple activist kind of position - not to question it as such, but to ask students to understand what drove them to it. Even so, a girl, who saw very gendered behaviour among her neighbours was aware and disturbed by it and raised a question in a conversation at school. Now a teacher in this context can immediately tell her about how some families are not broad minded, well educated, modern or plain silly. Or the teacher can say, beta have an open mind, maybe we are judging her too harshly. Or perhaps the 'teacher' can simply stay with the student on that inquiry, share her wonder and ask questions with her... to open up the question in a way that assumptions and expectations within it, if any, reveal themselves automatically, and the student can see the situation as closely to the truth of its entirety. in that situation, the student may choose to judge, deride or sympathize with that girl - and who are we to know what is correct. Is it a correct conclusion that she dismisses her behaviour as resulting from patriarchy? Do we know that for sure! And even if it is the right answer - must she arrive at it by the teacher's intervention. Need she arrive at it at all? If we truly believe that minds must be free, we cannot have the hidden rider that only liberal minds are truly free.Can we then live comfortably with our 'regressive' students or even friends? I think more than in school education, this is a challenge in higher education, esp. the social sciences. Can the social sciences move beyond being instructors of modernity? How do we all pas out of premier social science institutes all speaking the same language? Yet we think we are more 'open minded' than say technically educated students. Is that really so? s

And yet, such a teaching is all well to talk about. Can we have the required energy to sustain it.