RELIGION AS THERAPY

A WIDE CANVAS

RELIGION AS THERAPY

Life is a procession of anxieties, from the time we become self-conscious. In childhood, our anxieties are transferred to our parents, and we are blissfully immersed in other activities- 'balastavat kreeda sakta:' as the great Sankara said. But once we reach adulthood, the anxieties seize us.

The basic anxiety is about the very basic needs- food, clothing and shelter. In the traditional Hindu society and all pre-modern societies around the world, the means of livelihood were fixed- one could say in modern Indian political jargon "reserved": one belonged to a caste or community which had a definite place in the hierarchy, and had its fixed role, which guaranteed its livelihood. In India, the joint family further reinforced this, and provided insurance especially to the weak and the feeble. Modern critics would point out the numerous injustices and indignities in the system, as if modern society has banished them. Looked at as a total system, and as the ideal, it had its strengths and merits. Nothing on earth is perfect, and all human institutions and arrangements have their imperfections. But they also had merits, else they would not have survived. Why should we always think of the negatives? When we think of mangoes, why consider only the rotten ones?

A joint family of the Bunt community of Mangalore, around 1900.

The Varna or caste system removed this fundamental anxiety.Most people live at this level of consciousness, and this system serves society at large.With the disappearing caste system and its traditional occupations, every one in every generation faces the basic anxieties! Caste has gone or is going, but has left every one full of cares!

But more thoughtful people are not satisfied at this level. Once the basic needs are met, they do think about other or 'higher' things. The most important part of this relates to man's very nature and identity: What am I? Who am I? Where have I come from? Why ? Where am I going? One can say this is a sense of being baffled at the nature and meaning of existence, and man's place in this scheme of things. The universe is so vast, and man so tiny- it surely makes one uneasy, the moment he stops to think about it.

This is where religions come in. They interpret the world for him, and give some meaning and a way to navigate. In the process, they provide rites and rituals, invent philosophies, theologies, hierarchies and other arrangements. In course of time,man gets preoccupied with these things and forgets the main issue: the meaning of his life. 

Before the rise of Renaissance and Enlightenment phases in Europe, resulting in capitalism,scientific materialism  and  individualism, religions served well or at least adequately. They took care of the soul, even if they could not provide fully for the body's needs. For, had not Christ said in the Sermon on the Mount for people not to worry about what they would eat and drink, take no thought for the morrow, etc?

This is something we have to remember before we criticise any religion. In itself, every religion is adequate and self-fulfilling, for its times and followers. ( I am not talking of the cults). The problem starts when external elements intrude, and comparisons are made, leading to 'corrections', usually on the basis of incomprehension.This is what happened to India and Hinduism when the Muslims and British came. But what happened to Christianity, with the rise of science, was different.

Christianity believed that the universe was earth-centred; creation itself was man-centred: everything had been created for man. (This was a serious departure from the pre-Christian religions which held everything in the world to be belonging to a 'Great Chain of Being'. Man was part of a greater whole.) It held that the world had been created in 4004 BC. When science showed that the earth was not the centre of the universe, and that it was millions of years old, faith in Christian doctrine was broken. And with the coming of the theory of Evolution, the biggest nail was put in the coffin. With the spread of education and scientific culture, people stopped believing in organised Christianity and its dogmas. In a sense, it does not really  matter, from a strictly religious point of view, if the universe is Geo-centred or helio-centred: in religion we have to transcend the whole scheme, universe and all. But Christianity could not answer Evolution and it fell.

With the advances in communication and knowledge, nations and people have come closer and comparisons cannot be avoided. In a sense, comparisons were made even earlier, even in ancient times, but that was from a purely scholarly spirit. The British empire led to the discovery of the Orient by scholars but soon, the independent spirit of enquiry was replaced by colonial interests  and Christian missionary activities. However, independent scholars also flourished. Vivekananda's exposition of Vedanta in the West had created some interest initially, but soon it faded. Buddhism and especially in its form as Zen spread fast among the more educated.

There is deep appreciation among independent scholars about the truth of Vedanta, but its drawback is that it is an attitude, not a settled  or standard practice. Whatever our people may say about its merits, Vedanta, especially Advaita Vedanta, cannot be directly practised: it ends up as idle talk or arm-chair philosophy. Patanjali's Yoga Sutras do prescribe methods of practise, but they are not strictly Vedanta. It is here that Zen Buddhism scores. It does not teach any doctrine or theology, but  only different systems of meditational practice, which suit the Western psyche best.

Nietzsche

For three centuries, Western social and family life has been under assault. Science has brought material comforts, but the materialism associated with it has deprived life of all meaning. The feeling of anxiety, dread or worry (what the writers call 'existential angst") that arises when one contemplates life and its uncertainties is not silnced by any dogma.                                                                

                                                   

Soren Kierkegaard  and Nietzsche had held that this was something which had to be addressed by each individual, who had to find a meaning for himself."The setting is inwardness in existing as a human being", Kierkegaard wrote.

Kierkegaard.

 There are any number of theories or ideas developed by these writers and their followers like Sartre, Dostoyevsky etc but no one offers any practical help. Zen has helped here, enabling the meditator to confront and understand his inwardness. I am not suggesting or implying that the followers of existentialism necessarily followed Zen practices; I am only saying that like  organised Christianity before, existentialism too did not offer man any hope but ended in a note of baffled uncertainty. Zen helped to face and tide over this void. 

The foregoing gives us a clue to look at religion in a new light. The problems of life that face us may be taken as illnesses. Our philosophy says that our birth- taking body- itself is a disease. Then, true religion should give us a practical remedy, not just consolation. Vedanta says uncompromisingly that birth is due to karma, karma is caused by ego, and the only solution is Jnana- to understand one's true identity. This is the only true solution. This is also what the Buddha said in effect, using different terminology. Everything else is like a toy to keep babies engaged for the time being. But this stark solution does not appeal to or suit everyone. Hence the prescription of other methods, which in the end lead to this. Those methods themselves, except genuine Bhakti, do not constitute the ends.

Jnana does not mean climbing a mountain, retiring into a cave, joining some Ashram etc. In these days almost every one of us has to work for a living even in advanced age (this itself is a source of anxiety) and any method that advocates retired contemplation on the mysteries of life is bunkum. There are many gurus and courses, promising happiness, prosperity, health, wealth, etc. But no religion or philosophy which cannot act as therapy for the basic anxiety of living can be a real solution. Theodore Roszak wrote about what Alan Watts had written in this connection:

Buddhism could be thought of as a  form of psychotherapy and not just as a religion. Neither  Hinduism nor Buddhism, he says, can be classified as a religion, philosophy, science or mythology or even as an amalgamation of all four "because departmentalisation is foreign to them, even in so basic a form as the separation of the spiritual and the material."

From: Theodore Roszak: The Making of a Counterculture.Faber, London, 1970.


The tradition of  "skeptical , secular intellectuality, which has served as the prime vehicle for three hundred years of technical and scientific work in the West" has only added to our anxieties, and has ended up as "Higher Superstition". We can escape from this only through Buddhism and Hinduism, but interpreted and consciously practised as therapy.


NOTE:

It is a sign of the failure of organised Christianity in the West that psychoanalysis and various forms of psychological counselling have risen and are flourishing. However, one cannot say they have succeeded, either. The patients (or victims?) of psychoanalysis have to submit to the process for years, (like church attendance)  they depend on the therapist  (instead of the priest) and the end result is uncertain. These therapies became so threatening that ordained priests had to be trained as therapists and the methods had to be integrated into the theological courses. 

In India, we have a mind-boggling variety of ways to deal with life-problems- like astrology, numerology, propitiatory exercises, Vedic and Tantric rites,consulting oracles, visiting spcifc temples for specific purposes, etc. Experience differs as to their effectiveness, but there is always something to satisfy someone!

What I mean by therapy is not these. The greatest problem or biggest fear is about Life itself- its meaning and purpose: "mahato bhayat", as the Gita says. True sastra is one which answers this. It is remarkable that in our stotra literature, this aspect of God is specifically stated:

eg. Sri Rudram:

Ya te Rudras Shiva tanoo:  Shiva vishvaha: bheshaji
Shiva Rudrasya bheshaji taya no mruda jeevase.

Oh Lord! Bless us that we may always behold your auspicious form, ever unseparated from Shakti, which is the  supreme medicine for the disease of birth and which grants us the blissful state of non-separation from You!


Vishnu Sahasranamam:

Nirvaanam Bheshajam bhishak.

O Lord! You are that medicine which grants us the state of non-forgetfulness of Self (where the ego in the form of 'I'  and 'mine' are absent.)
You are also the best physician who administers this medicine!




We only have to keep the meaning in mind whenever we recite them.



N 

TO CATCH A THIEF

A WIDE CANVAS

TO CATCH A THIEF

Hindu religion is both fascinating and frustrating at the same time: extremely helpful, and also totally unhelpful. The basic ideas are simple, but not rendered easy of comprehension by the advocates of religion.It has been made complicated by every succeeding philosopher, theologian, Acharya, guru etc.

At base, Hindu Sages said the world is an appearance; there is a greater reality behind the world. Our job is to find it, experience it- not be satisfied with any mental or verbal statement.. We cannot find peace with the world or ourselves till this is done.

But they did not go about tom-toming this to all and sundry. They sat in their place and addressed themselves to the serious seekers. For the rest they gave some toys- some gods, goddesses, some theory some ideas, some rituals,etc, so that they won't harm themselves or others. This would keep them engaged with the world, so long as they liked it that way. But when some serious teachers like Buddha or Sankara attempted to make it the standard for all, it broke down and made society weak.

The Sages found the solution was Individual, not communal. There was no collective salvation. Each one had to work out his way at his own pace. Communal life was necessary to fulfil social needs, but it could not interfere with the personal effort. What one believed personally about God or the world or the devil did not matter, so long as he conformed to the social norms. The Gita clearly says that even the Realised person has no business to unsettle the mind of the common man. 

One can find these two elements in all religions (except perhaps Islam). True Hinduism  or its higher form (Vedanta) was practised by a handful in isolated communities in forest dwellings; or by  lofty individuals in splendid isolation even in society; the rest was a preparation for it. The base was large and so stable; it supported the rising superstructure, getting narrower at the top. Or, rather it was like the lamp. When we say the lamp burns, it is only the tip of the wick that burns; but we need the lamp proper, the whole wick, the oil, etc. But so long as the system could produce such a genuine phenomenon, it was safe and sound. 

 Absolute spiritual  truth and relative existence were reconciled by this device of a two level  approach. Where the organised church tried to impose blind uniformity in alignment with political power, it led to the Reformation and splitting of the Church. Islamic fundamentalism is likewise an attempt to foist one system throughout. It is bound to fail, but not before causing much damage.

Hinduism did not make such  a mistake. It teaches that one has to live in the world as if it were real, but knowing that there is a greater reality behind it. It cannot be reconciled by any neat theory or philosophy. We know the sun does not rise or set, but all our practical affairs are arranged as if the sun rose and set! Or it is like particle physics and Newtonian physics. This is perhaps the most distinct, fundamental insight of Hinduism. It does not go about imposing it on all as the only doctrine. It states the facts and leaves it to one to experience the truth of it.

Nor did Hinduism enter into arguments about God, Creation,etc.: whether God is with or without form, whether he has attributes or no attributes, etc. This was a favourite topic of discussion  among the English educated Bengalis of the 19th century, under the influence of missionary movements and reform outfits. Sri Ramakrishna gave the most effective answer. After him, Sri Ramana Maharshi revolutionised the spiritual quest: he revealed it as an enquiry into  or the discovery of the truth of the Self- which alone is the one incontrovertible fact of existence- which even an atheist cannot deny. This involves no theory, no theology, no dogma, no philosophy, no God, no Church. 65 years after his passing, this is not yet understood.   

The rise of modern thinking since the 19th century has removed the idea of religion and God from human consciousness, and day to day life. The experience that led to the founding of the religions has become alien to the modern consciousness, and nothing else can touch it and hold it for long. Peter Watson has written a magnificent book, chronicling all the ideas that held sway' in the wake of that unfortunate declaration by the mentally unstable Nietzsche: 'God is dead, and we have killed him.' (The Age of Atheists: How We Have Sought to Live Since the Death of God. Simon & Schuster, 2014)Finally, everything is as false as religion was supposed to be  and nothing is ever  certain anymore!  The so called modern philosophers do not know what to make of their own existence, any more than the scientists. They have no idea of 'truth' at all.

Friedrich Nietzsche
Photo by F.Hartmann. Public Domain. Wikimedia commons.
He was a critique of mass culture, said it led to mediocrity and led to the decline of the human species. Some could become superior individuals through will power.

Most of  us are blessed. We do not have to wade through these dense oceans  of modern  verbal nonsense to understand that its authors are unhinged. But even then we are not spared. These ideas and derivatives from them have pervaded all aspects of life and thought, and continue to bombard us through the media in all its forms: the press, invariably owned by vested interests; the TV and electronic channels and media, video and other forms of digital communication,etc. Art, literature, literary criticism, academics, science, the professions- no field now openly acknowledges God or celebrates his reign. 

There is something which C.S.Lewis in the 30s called "chronological snobbery" - the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our age. ( See: The Essential C.S.Lewis. Edited by Lyle W.Dorsett, Simon&Schuster,1996, p.7 and 15) This is now prevailing in India. Established religion is its biggest victim, while any number of cults and whims flourish by the wayside! Educated, intelligent writers have enriched every movement criticising God and religion- like secularism, philosophical materialim, moral relativism, Freudianism,nihilism, existentialism, Marxism, multiculturalism, mass consumerism,etc whereas the religions have suffered from a lack of able, intelligent advocates. And even when they say or write something worthy, they do not get a platform!

Those who oppose religion are united in that goal, but the advocates of religion differ on the basis of faith and dogma. This is indeed a pity because critical studies have shown that it is the mere fact of some religious faith, and not the scientific validity of its theology that is beneficial. Religion is more useful as a sociological  factor, embedding people in a common psyche and it provides sense of security, physical and mental health benefits. 

Every religion in the world flourished in a specific cultural context. Christianity and Islam, in their conversion zeal, imposed alien ideas and landscape on converted people. But this has led to a strange spectacle. In 1900, 80% of Christians lived in Europe and America. Today, 60% of Christians live in third world countries. Educated Westerners are becoming more secular and less fertile, and the adherents of fundamentalist faiths have much higher birth rates! Reasoned, established and enlightened approaches to religion are being replaced even in America by such movements as evangelicals, charismatic persons promising health,wealth, everything; Pentecostals, fundamentalists of many types.

Many thoughtful,decent people have rejected religion on account of the atrocities they have committed through history. If we are a little more thoughtful, and equally honest, we will have to say the same about science: were not the two world wars prime results of science's triumph and God's death? Is not the current ecological crisis the result of science?Religion did not remove poverty or reduce distress- true. But has the progress of science done that? Or any of the other world-conquering ideologies? Not only the God of religion, but every God has failed!