About the relationship between husband and wife
In recent days, a school of political thought known as socialism is making a lot of commotion. Taking birth among the industrial workers of Europe, it might have been inevitable there. With the strong tendency in India to imitate others, a few people insisting that this system be implemented here have become powerful. One of the cardinal principles of that school of thought is that of universal equality. This principle has created a gap between husband and wife and has divided the familial system. Now, the husband has his own reckoning while the wife counts her own. In earlier days, marriage invitations sent to friends and relatives would be only in the name of the head of the family, who represented all the menfolk and womenfolk of that family. But now, Mr. and Mrs. are different. More strangely, “Mrs.” is placed first to show respect to women; then comes Mister - even though the Mister is senior in age and has given his surname to his wife. This new practice appears to not have entered Europe yet, who still prefer to print Mr. before Mrs. We have started to improve upon Western practice by writing śrīmatī and śrīmān Gopungava Rao. Such a practice might be fine to some. There may be detractors too. But a division between husband and wife is not in line with our śāstras.
Our śāstras essentially state that the husband and wife are not separate individuals, but one personality. In prosperity or poverty, both are to face it together. If a married person becomes a widower, he becomes ineligible to perform karma. The presence and participation of the wife is vitally necessary in all the karmas of a householder. A brāhmaṇa without a wife is unfit to receive dāna. Even when a wife is on her periods, her impurity applies to her husband making him ineligible for attending śrāddha ceremonies. The essence from all of it is this - In the śāstra, husband and wife form a single personality. If they count themselves separately, it is like partitioning the family. Our new citizenry has to think and tell us how good it is to give up unity while hankering after equality.
4. A questioning intellect
A questioning intellect strives to establish the nature of objects and events based on an examination of their qualities and an analysis of cause and effect. I cannot think of it as a defect. In fact, a questioning intellect is vital. However, rejecting a question itself as invalid due to the unavailability of an answer is not intellectual honesty. This questioning intellect is not the sole property of modern civilization, but is a mode of thought that has come to us unbroken from ancient times. All the Upaniṣads are in the form of questions and answers. The Veda itself contains many such questions.
kvedamabbhraṃ niviśate |
kiggṃsvidāsīt pūrvacittiḥ |
ko’ntarikṣe śabdaṃ karotīti |
Let us look at this extract from the praśnopaniṣat. This is the prefatory exhortation from a teacher to student.
yathākāmaṃ praśnān pṛcchatha |
yadi vijñāsyāṃaḥ sarvaṃ ha vo vakṣyāma iti ||
It is not just natural to discuss a question whose answer we do not know; it also becomes our duty. But there is something unique here. There are two kinds of objects that are perceived by our minds. The first is accessible through the sense organs and hence available for direct examination. The second is beyond the senses and not directly perceived. Of the second type are self-knowledge, knowledge of devatās, and knowledge of other worlds. We have discussed elsewhere that the śāstric instructions are the means for knowledge in such subtle matters.
tasmācchāstraṃ pramāṇaṃ te |
-BG 16-24
It is our duty to examine an object when it is available for direct examination via the senses. This is the practice of modern science.
A word of caution here. Scientific methods of examination that apply to the physical world cannot be applied to the world beyond the senses. The methods of examining physical phenomena are different from those in the spiritual world due to their differing characteristics. Because of the difference between sense-accessible and supra-sensory objects, the techniques of examination used in one realm do not apply to the other. But analysis of cause and effect is necessary in both realms.
Physical science: Going from direct perception to the inner nature of an object.
Spiritual science: Going from the śāstra to the inner experience of the seeker.
In both of these, the experience of the seeker is the foremost testimony.
One has to stay clear of another confusion. There is no relation between miracles and self-knowledge. Let us assume that it is possible to achieve these miraculous abilities through penance, yoga and assiduous application of mantras. Countering the poison of snakes and scorpions through mantras; curing fevers with vibhūti and kuṅkuma; manifesting fruits and jewels from empty hands; avoiding prison and punishment by giving prasāda of flowers; achieving profit in business, a salary hike, a baby through a glance of the eye, a touch of the hand or a magic word; fasting while sitting in the same place for eight days; stilling of the breath; ingesting water through the nose and spitting it out through the ear - are some of many supernatural activities that many proclaim as their accomplishments. Those supernatural abilities might even be real. Even so, we must remember that such abilities do not testify to the knowledge of reality. The knower of reality might not have witnessed any miracle. For him, the līlā of the universe is the most wondrous of all līlās. The Veda is a narration of all these wonders. The knowledge of reality might be a distant thing for one who claims to be a miracle worker.
There are other things to note such as combinations of direct and indirect perception such as the effect of mantras, astrology, omens, and palmistry. Should we believe in them or not? The real difficulty is here. My opinion about such circumstances is as follows - if there is no direct harm in following those ancient practices, let us follow them to the extent possible. If, however, there is harm, be indifferent towards such practices. It is usually quite unnecessary to take a final and universal decision in these matters. There may be some rare circumstances for which I use the following maxim. There are three situations that require our faith.
- Those phenomena that are found to be true through experience and other testimony. Faith there is a must.
- Those phenomena that lack the strength of experiential testimony and are falsified by examination and experiment. Faith is not necessary here. Such phenomena can be pushed aside.
- Those phenomena which have not been sufficiently examined. Complete faith is not possible here; but neither is complete disbelief. In these matters, we should keep our decision suspended. We should be neutral towards them. When the occasion crops up, perform only that is needed to sustain tradition and uphold faith in society. When experience and testimony gradually increase, re-analyse the situation and re-adjust our perspective towards it.
I firmly believe that neither a rational attitude nor new advances in modern science can even disturb the core thesis of the Gītā. This is because the science of the self and the science of the world are separate topics. However, they are not opposed to each other. They are found intertwined in human life. Both the outer world and inner self-consciousness combine together in a jīva. He who discerns the self from the non-self divides his life into two compartments - one for the world and one for his inner self. In the arena of the world he considers the hierarchy of differences and behaves accordingly. This is transactional or worldly. In the arena of his inner self, he reflects upon the oneness of the self which is the highest truth.
Scientific, social, and economic theories belong to the world. They are transactional in nature. The spiritual perspective or the remembrance of Brahma that is ultimate should be protected from this changing transactional world.
This world is constantly changing. The self is changeless. Remembering the changeless truth amidst an ever changing world is an impenetrable armour for the jīva, protecting it from the blows of world changes. Similarly, world activities performed while keeping the divine in mind do not harm the jīvas but benefit the entire world.
To be continued...
The present series is a modern English translation of DVG’s Kendra Sahitya Akademi Award-winning work, Bhagavad-gītā-tātparya or Jīvana-dharma-yoga. The translators wish to express their thanks to Śatāvadhāni R Ganesh for his valuable feedback and to Hari Ravikumar for his astute edits.
